X 


v^.X^"^ 


^^v   ^'"^ 


of  ?rin.r 

-    -  3  -^- 


BS    500    .M4    1892 

Mead,  Charles  Marsh,  1836- 

1911. 
Christ  and  criticism 


j'"'^}  »««.«< 


CHRIST    AND    CRITICISM 


THOUGHTS   CONCERNING   THE    RELATION 


OF 


CHRISTIAN    FAITH 


TO 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


BY 

CHARLES    MARSH    MEAD,    Ph.D.,    D.D. 

PROFESSOR   IN   HARTFORD   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


NEW   YORK 
ANSON    D.    F.   RANDOLPH   &   COMPANY 

(incorporated) 
182    FIFTH   AVENUE 


PREFACE. 


The  following  treatise  is  in  part  an  expansion  of 
the  last  chapter  of  my  work  on  Supernatural  Revelation. 
I  have  been  the  more  moved  to  write  it  inasmuch 
as,  in  spite  of  what  might  well  seem  to  be  clear  enough 
statements,  my  views  have  been  misapprehended  by 
some,  and  have  been  represented  as  hostile  to  the 
higher  criticism.  Lest  the  present  work  should  make 
the  same  impression,  let  me  at  the  outset  emphatically 
say  that  I  regard  the  higher  criticism  as  not  only 
entirely  legitimate,  but  as  very  useful,  and  indiscrimi- 
nate condemnation  of  it  as  foolish.  Genuine  criticism 
is  nothing  but  the  search  after  truth;  and  of  this 
there  cannot  be  too  much. 

On  the  other  hand,  higher  critics  and  their  cham- 
pions are  scarcely  less  foolish  when  they  denounce  every 
animadversion  made  on  their  methods  or  their  alleged 
results  as  an  illicit  infringement  on  freedom  of  research. 
Surely  the  right  to  criticise  a  critic's  theories  is  as 
sacred  as  the  right  of  the  critic  to  propound  them. 
The  higher  criticism,  like  all  other  good  things  is 
capable  of  abuse;  and  every  one  has  a  right  to  say 
when  he  thinks  such  an   abuse   has  been  committed. 


iv  PREFACE. 

The  special  object  of  the  following  discussion  is  to 
aid  in  the  general  work  of  getting  at  the  truth  as 
regards  the  Bible,  by  setting  forth  how  far  the  author- 
ity of  Jesus  Christ  should  properly  be  allowed  to 
modify,  or  to  regulate,  the  process  of  Biblical  criticism. 
Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  result  which  has  been 
reached,  it  should  be  distinctly  understood  that  the 
object  has  been,  not  to  oppose  criticism,  but  to  help  it. 

Inasmuch  as  it  has  now  become  known  to  the  public 
that  the  pseudonymous  work,  Romans  Dissected^  by 
E.  D.  McRealsham  (in  German,  Der  Romerhrief  beur- 
theilt  und  geviertheilt  von  Carl  Hesedamm),  was  written 
by  myself,  I  may  properly  here  say  a  word  concerning 
the  object  of  it.  Though  some  friendly  critics  have 
spoken  of  it  as  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  analysis 
of  the  Pentateuch,  I  can  hardly  assent  to  such  a 
judgment.  The  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
may  be  dissected  in  an  ironical  way  does  not  prove 
that  a  similar  dissection  of  the  Pentateuch,  seriously 
undertaken,  is  equally  baseless.  It  is  possible  that 
there  are  more  cogent  reasons  for  postulating  the 
composite  character  of  the  Pentateuch  than  that  of 
Romans.  This  is  itself  a  matter  for  candid  critics 
to  consider. 

Other  critics  of  the  book  have  regarded  it  as 
aimed  solely  at  the  radical  critics  of  the  New  Testament, 
such  as  Professor  Steck,  who  denies  the  genuineness 
even  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  This  is  also  only 
in  part  correct.  Over  against  those  who  seriously 
contest  the  genuineness  of  the  book  an  ironical  essay  to 
prove  its  spuriousness  can  obviously  have  little  weight. 
The  real  object  of  Romans  Dissected  was  not  so  much 
to  refute  any  particular  theory  concerning   either  the 


PREFACE. 


Old  Testament  or  the  New,  as  to  show  in  general 
that  a  critical  disintegration  of  a  hook  by  a  mere 
inspection  of  its  contents,  style,  and  linguistic  charac- 
teristics, unconfirmed  by  external  testimony,  cannot 
be  depended  on  as  giving  us  the  truth  —  or,  in  fact, 
anything  more  than  plausible  conjecture  —  concerning 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  book.  And  this  object 
may,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  gained. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

December.  1892. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SEAECH  AFTER  ASSURANCE. 

The  tendency  to  search  for  grounds  of  full  confidence  in 
matters  of  religious  faith.  I.  The  various  methods  pursued. 
1.  The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  The  alleged  authority  of 
councils  and  Popes.  Objections.  Relation  of  ecclesiastical 
infallibility  to  thfr  Scriptures  and  Christ.  2.  The  rationalistic 
doctrine.  How  far  it  is  justifiable.  Fallacy  of  it.  3.  The  mys- 
tical doctrine.  Objections  to  it.  4.  The  Protestant  doctrine. 
Authority  of  the  Bible.  Biblical  infallibility.  Difficulties  of  the 
doctrine.  Christ  the  superior  authority.  5.  Christ  as  the  ground 
of  assurance.  Faith  in  him  considered  as  outranking  faith  in 
the  Bible.  But  why  accept  Christ  as  infallible?  11.  General 
answer  to  the  question,  how  Christians  can  justify  their  faith. 
1.  Tradition  first  brings  Christ  before  the  mind.  The  presump- 
tion in  favor  of  tradition.  2.  Christian  experience  confirms  the 
report  of  tradition.  3.  Historic  records  sanction  the  testimony 
of  tradition  and  experience.  These  three  grounds  of  assurance 
belong  together  and  confirm  one  another.  pp.  1 — 20 

CHAPTER  II 

CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

Faith  in  Christ  considered  as  independent  of  Biblical  criti- 
cism.   The  question  presented,  How  do  we  know  Christ  to  be 


viii  CONTEXTS. 

worthy  of  faith?  The  evidence  is  that  of  history,  and  the  historical 
evidence  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  The  invalidation  of  the 
New  Testament  would  overthrow  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
faith.  Reconciliation  of  this  principle  with  that  which  makes 
faith  in  Christ  prior  and  superior  to  faith  in  the  Bible.  Not 
accomplished  by  insisting  that  criticism  confirms  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Grospels.  The  problem  illustrated  by  the  history  of 
Washington.  Faith  in  the  man  and  faith  in  the  written  history 
of  the  man  go  together  and  cannot  be  disjoined.  Faith,  there- 
fore, not  independent  of  criticism. 

How  far  is  criticism  limited  by  faith?  Prepossessions  un- 
avoidable. 1.  Christian  faith  involves  faith  in  the  general 
truthfulness  of  the  New  Testament  portraiture  of  Christ.  Not 
necessarily  in  the  absolute  inerrancy  or  supernatural  inspiration 
of  the  book.  But  if  so  ,  how  far  may  one  go  in  the  rejection 
of  Biblical  statements?  One  must  recognize  the  community  of 
the  Christian  faith.  The  common  faith  involves  a  common  ac- 
ceptance of  the  New  Testament.  A  radical  departure  from  the 
common  faith  destroys  one's  claim  to  be  a  Christian.  What  is  a 
radical  departure?  Impossibility  of  supposing  that  Christendom 
has  in  general  misconceived  the  meaning  of  the  New  Testament. 

2.  In  interpreting  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  Christ 
it  is  unwarrantable  to  make  use  wholly  or  preponderantly  of  a 
particular  part  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Epistles  as  legiti- 
mate sources  of  information  as  the  Gospels.  Paul  in  no 
way  inferior  to  Luke  as  an  informant.  The  Fourth  Gospel 
and  the  Synoptists.  Unreasonableness  of  eliminating  the  evi- 
dence of  John,  Paul,  and  Peter,  and  taking  only  that  of  the 
Synoptists.  Such  a  method  presupposes  that  Christ  is  known 
before  the  sources  of  the  knowledge  are  consulted. 

3.  Faith  in  Christ  inconsistent  with  a  general  doubt  or 
denial  of  the  supernatural.  The  presumption  which  lies  against 
stories  of  the  miraculous  in  general  cannot  be  pleaded  against 
the  New  Testament  accounts  of  Christ  without  abandoning  faith 
in  the  only  Christ  that  we  know  about.  Miracles  considered  as 
historical  events.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  cannot  be  denied 
consistently  with  Christian  faith.  3Iartineau's  efifort  to  discredit 
the  New  Testament  narratives  of  the  resurrection. 

4.  Christian  faith  forbids  in  general  the  adoption  of  purely 


CONTENTS.  ,X 

subjective  canons  of  criticism.  Interpretation  in  all  departments 
dependent  on  common  standards  and  judgments.  Radically  new 
expositions  of  the  New  Testament  practically  impossible.  The 
consensus  of  Christendom  must  more  or  less  control  all  exegetes. 
5.  Christian  faith  forbids  us  to  assume  that  a  large  part 
of  the  New  Testament  is  spurious,  fictitious,  pseudonymous,  or 
partisan.  The  doubts  about  the  canonicity  of  some  of  the  New 
Testament  books.  How  far  can  such  doubts  be  carried?  We 
are  dependent  on  the  early  Church  for  historical  information  as 
to  the  authorship  of  the  books.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  the 
Church  was  generally  deceived  in  the  matter  ?  Particular  cases. 
The  Fourth  Grospel.  Paul's  Epistles,  The  Tiibingeu  theory.  — 
What  are  the  prerogatives  and  uses  of  New  Testament  criticism? 
The  Synoptic  problem.  Patristic  studies.  External  evidences 
versus  critical  inspection.  pp,  21—  75 

CHAPTER  III. 

CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

Diii'erence  between  this  and  the  foregoing  problem.  Im- 
portance of  Christ's  personal  testimony.  I.  Jesus  speaks  in 
general  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  history  and  vehicle  of  a 
divine  revelation.     Illustrations. 

II.  What  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  these  utterances? 
Was  Christ  omniscient?  1.  Opinion  of  the  Church.  Statements 
of  the  creeds.  Difficulties  of  the  problem.  The  man  Christ 
Jesus  not  generally  called  strictly  omniscient.  2.  Testimony  of  the 
New  Testament.  Declarations  which  imply  a  limitation  of  his 
knowledge.  Passages  which  imply  a  peculiar  knowledge.  3.  Ex- 
tent of  the  limitation.  Christ  considered  as  infallible  in  spiritual 
things,  but  fallible  in  others.  Difficulties  of  this  conception. 
Evidences  that  Christ  had  peculiar  knowledge  in  secular  matters. 
Presumptive  evidence  that  he  must  have  been  exceptional  in 
his  intelligence.  At  least  he  must  have  been  clearly  conscious 
of  his  own  knowledge. 

III.  Application  of  the  foregoing.  1.  The  Christian  faith 
requires  us  to  assume  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  record, 
vehicle,  or  product  of  a  divine  revelation  preparatory  to  the 
Christian.     Proof  that   Christ    and   the   New  Testament  so  con- 


X  CONTENTS. 

ceived  the  matter,  flejection  of  Christ's  view  on  this  point  in- 
volves distrust  of  Christ  in  general.  The  doctrine  of  the  limi- 
tation of  Christ's  knowledge  not  available  here. 

2.  Christian  faith  requires  one  to  hold  to  the  general 
historic  truthfulness  of  the  Old  Testament,  The  prophetic 
relation  of  the  Old  to  the  New  Testament  presupposes  the 
truthfulness  of  the  former.  Impossibility  of  reconciling  the 
authority  of  Christ  with  the  assumption  of  the  unhistoricalness 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Particular  questions.  Authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  of  Isaiah  xl. — Ixvi. 

3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  Christian  faith  to  hold  that  deceit 
and  fraud  played  an  important  part  in  the  formation  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon.  Allegations  as  to  the  Pentateuch.  The 
radical  theory  not  established.  Difficulties  created  by  it.  (1)  It 
has  an  immense  counter-presumption  to  overcome,  in  the  decla- 
rations of  the  Bible  and  in  the  general  belief  of  Christendom. 
(2)  It  is  tainted  with  disbelief  in  the  supernatural.  (3)  The 
main  argument  for  it  is  not  conclusive.  (4)  The  testimony  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  rejected,  and  assumptions  of  interpolations 
and  reconstructions  have  to  be  made,  (5)  It  is  assumed  that 
forgery  was  used  in  the  composition  of  whole  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  (6)  Unsuccessful  attempts  to  account  for  the  cere- 
monial law  being  called  Mosaic.  (7)  Inconsistencies  in  the 
representations  of  the  testimony  of  the  prophets.  (8)  The  theory 
has  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  sacrificial 
code.  (9)  It  assumes  that  the  most  of  the  Mosaic  law  was 
smuggled  into  currency  by  fraudulent  tricks.  Unsuccessful 
efforts  to  avoid  this  charge. 

Conclusion,  The  theory  not  established.  What  the  Old 
Testament  is  according  to  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis.  Incon- 
sistency of  it  with  Christ's  view.  The  attempt  to  waive  aside 
Christ's  testimony.  The  dilemma  presented.  Distinction  be- 
tween the  extreme  and  the  modified  form  of  Pentateuch  analysis. 

pp.  76—154 

CHAPTER  IV, 

CONCLUDING  REMAEKS. 

1.  The  objection  considered,  that  the  foregoing  conclusions 
impose  an  unwarrantable  fetter  on  criticism.     Critics  must  be 


COXTENTS.  xi 

free  to  discover  facts.  But  facts  are  to  be  distinguished  from 
inferences.  So-called  results  of  criticism  often  nothing  but 
hypotheses.  The  testimony  of  Christ  one  of  the  facts  to  be 
reckoned  with.  Christian  faith  does  in  some  respects  limit 
criticism. 

2.  Higher  criticism  is  new  only  in  name. 

3.  Higher  criticism  not  identical  with  destructive  criticism. 

4.  There  is  danger  of  exaggerating  the  results  of  modern 
Biblical  criticism.  What  has  been  accomplished?  The  Penta- 
teuch. Isaiah  xl.— Ixvi.  The  integrity  of  Zechariah.  Chronicles, 
etc.  Theories  concerning  the  New  Testament.  Inspiration  and 
inerrancy. 

5.  It  is  not  well  to  make  preiuature  concessions  to  critical 
hypotheses.  The  analogy  of  new  discoveries  in  natural  science. 
The  case  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  The  extreme  theory  which 
makes  these  Epistles  all  spurious.  The  similar  hypothesis  con- 
cerning the  Old  Testament.  How  the  Tiibingen  theory  was 
treated.  The  fact  that  some  Christian  men  adopt  a  theory  no 
proof  that  it  is  not  anti-Christian  in  its  tendency, 

6.  Respect  for  the  Bible  of  the  radical  critics  not  to  be 
preserved  bj'  the  assumption  that  at  any  rate  it  is  all  inspired. 
Authenticity  more  important  than  inspiration,  and  a  condition 
of  it.  Danger  of  conscious  or  unconscious  illusion  in  this  profession 
of  faith  in  inspiration. 

7.  Faith  in  criticism  should  not  control  faith  in  Christ. 
Otherwise  the  authority  of  Christ  is  weakened,  and  the  standard 
of  faith  lowered.  The  desire  to  make  the  Church  "broad".  The 
secret  of  the  Church's  power  lies  in  the  exaltation  of  Christ. 

pp.  155—186 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SEARCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE. 

It  is  one  of  the  prominent  features  of  Christian 
thought  at  the  present  time  that  men  are  striving  to 
find  a  ground  of  assurance  for  the  faith  that  is  in 
them.  It  is  one  thing  to  have  certain  beliefs,  quite 
another  to  be  able  to  justify  those  beliefs  over  against 
doubts  and  objections.  One's  faith  may  come  (as  in 
most  cases  it  does  and  must  come)  from  tradition. 
As  soon,  however,  as  the  faith  is  questioned,  and  one 
is  forced  to  make  known  what  ground  he  has  for  assu- 
rance of  faith,  he  may  be  quite  at  a  loss  what  to  say, 
"What  he  has  implicitly  accepted  may  seem  to  be 
without  any  sure  foundation.  A  bold  challenge  or  a 
plausible  objection  may  be  enough  to  confound  the 
traditional  faith  which  has  been  cherished. 

Is  there ,  then ,  a  ground  of  certainty  in  matters 
of  religious  belief?  On  the  one  hand,  the  nature  of 
this  belief  is  such  that  certitude  is  extremely  desir- 
able;   on   the    other,   the  great  diversity  of  religious 

1 


2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

faiths  makes  it  obvious  that  not  all  of  them  can  be 
grounded  on  an  impregnable  basis.  Yet  all  naturally 
wish  to  feel  an  assurance  of  being  in  the  right.  It  is 
reasonable  to  desire  to  be  sure  of  the  correctness  of 
one's  religious  faith.  To  have  to  say,  ^'I  believe  so 
and  so ,  but  perhaps  the  truth  is  quite  otherwise", 
implies  a  faith  so  wavering  that  it  can  hardly  nerve 
one  to  great  effort  or  have  a  moulding  effect  on  one's 
character.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  Christian 
theologians  of  various  types  haves  sought  to  find  a 
ground  of  assurance  for  their  religious  faith. 

I.  Let  us,  then,  first  consider  the  principal  methods 
pursued  in  justifying  this  assurance. 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  If  the  Church, 
as  represented  by  the  Councils  or  by  the  Pope,  is  in- 
fallible, then  Christians  of  every  grade  of  intelligence 
may  safely  rest  in  what  this  authority  propounds  as 
truth.  "Whoever  can  implicitly  accept  the  Papal  utter- 
ances as  the  final  word,  whenever  human  judgments 
are  at  variance  with  one  another,  may  enjoy  a  perfect 
sense  of  assurance.  But  the  question  cannot  well  be 
suppressed:  How  does  one  come  to  the  assurance 
that  the  Pope  is  infallible?  The  Roman  Catholic 
child  is  instructed  to  believe  this ;  but  when  he  comes 
to  inquire  on  what  ground  he  accepts  the  doctrine, 
there  presents  itself  a  troublesome  difficulty.  The 
Pope's  infallibility  was  affirmed  by  the  majority  of  a 
Council  of  bishops  and  cardinals.  Even  if  the  minor- 
ity vote  is  cast  aside  as  of  no  weight,  we  are  still 
confronted  with  the  consideration  that  we  cannot 
regard  that  vote  as  establishing  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Pope's  infallibility,  unless  we  first  assume 
the  infallibility  of  the  Council    which   proclaimed   it. 


THE  SEARCH  APTEB  ASSUBANCE.  O 

The  question  has  then  to  be  answered :  Whence  comes 
the  assurance  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Council? 
And  the  answer  must  be,  either  that  the  Council 
affirms  its  own  infallibility,  or  that  some  other  trust- 
worthy authority  affirms  it.  In  the  former  case  the 
difficulty  cannot  but  be  felt  that  a  bare  assertion  of 
its  own  infallibility  is  no  proof  of  it.  In  the  latter 
case  the  question  arises,  where  is  the  proof  that  the 
tradition  which  affirms  the  infallibility  of  the  Council 
is  itself  absolutely  trustworthy  ?  The  parent  or  teacher 
or  pastor  from  whom  the  child  first  receives  the  af- 
firmation cannot  be  regarded  as  infallible;  and  by 
tracing  the  tradition  further  back  through  a  long 
line  of  parents,  teachers,  and  pastors  the  case  is  not 
bettered. 

Clearly,  to  one  in  doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  reli- 
gious doctrines  no  repose  of  faith  can  come  from  such 
bare  assertions  or  claims  of  infallibility  on  the  part 
of  teacher,  Council,  or  Pope.  There  must  be  some- 
thing to  back  up  these  affirmations,  else  they  will 
seem  to  be  dictated  by  foolish  arrogance.  And  there 
is  something  back  of  the  assertions.  There  is  the 
assumption  that  Christ,  who  founded  the  Christian 
Church,  promised  and  effectually  secured  to  it  the 
possession  of  the  truth,  and  that  there  must  be  some 
means  of  deciding,  amidst  the  variety  of  opinions, 
what  the  real  truth  is.  It  is  held  that  Christ  dele- 
gated to  his  apostles  the  right  and  power  to  interpret 
his  doctrines,  and  that  the  apostles  handed  down  this 
power  to  their  successors. 

The  real  source  of  divine  truth  is  thus  found  in 
Christ.  The  New  Testament ,  as  coming  directly  or 
mediately  from  the  apostles,    is  accepted  as  authori- 


^  CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

tative.  The  oral  teachings  of  the  apostles,  as  handed 
down  through  ecclesiastical  tradition,  are  held  to  be 
of  co-ordinate  authority  with  the  Scriptures.  More- 
over, the  Scriptures  themselves  being  largely  obscure 
to  the  ordinary  mind,  there  is  need  (it  is  said)  of  an 
authoritative  interpretation  of  them;  and  this  inter- 
pretation can  be  found  only  in  those  who  have  been 
authoritatively  commissioned  by  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles to  act  as  interpreters.  Practically ,  therefore, 
though  not  theoretically,  the  word  of  the  Popes  and 
the  Councils  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  super- 
sedes the  Scriptures.  According  to  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  no  individual  can  appeal  to  Scripture  as 
against  Pope  and  Council,  since  the  Pope  and  Coun- 
cil are  authorized  to  interpret  Scripture,  and  the 
private  interpretation  must  yield  to  the  authorized 
one.  Thus  while  the  Pope  claims  to  be  only  the 
vicar  of  Christ,  and  Christ  is  recognized  as  being  the 
supreme  Head,  in  reality  the  Roman  Catholic's  assu- 
rance in  religious  matters  comes  from  his  faith  in  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  as  the  infallible  interpreter  of 
the  mind  of  Christ  and  of  the  Scriptures.  Here  is 
the  main  difference  between  the  Roman  Catholic  and 
the  Protestant.  Both  acknowledge  Christ  as  Saviour 
and  as  authoritative  Teacher.  They  disagree  as  regards 
the  means  by  which  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is 
mediated. 

The  weak  point  in  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
is  found  in  the  assumption  concerning  the  delegation 
of  infallibility  not  only  to  the  apostles,  but  to  an  in- 
definite line  of  successors.  Where  is  the  proof  that 
such  infallible  authority  has  been  thus  delegated? 
Should  it  be  said  that  ecclesiastical  tradition  asserts 


THE  SEARCH  AFTEB  ASSURANCE.  g 

the  fact  of  such  a  commission  from  Christ  to  his 
episcopal  successors,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  the 
proof  of  this  assertion  is  wholly  wanting  at  just  the 
point  where  it  is  most  needed,  viz.,  as  regards  the 
first  century  of  the  Christian  Church.  Where  is  the 
evidence  that  the  apostles  were  to  have  successors  at 
all?  All  that  specifically  distinguishes  them  from 
other  Christians,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  is 
their  special  appointment  by  Christ,  and  their  fitness 
to  serve  as  direct  witnesses  of  Christ's  words  and 
works,  and  particularly  of  his  resurrection.  No  alleged 
successors  of  later  centuries  can  have  these  quali- 
fications; and  there  is  not  a  shred  of  evidence  in  the 
New  Testament,  or  in  any  other  authentic  source,  that 
the  apostles  were  commissioned  to  delegate  their 
authority  to  a  line  of  successors.  That  such  a  notion 
sprang  up  later  is  true;  and  that  it  has  been  trans- 
mitted is  true ;  but  all  this  does  not  supply  the  miss- 
ing link  of  the  argument ;  still  less  does  it  authenticate 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  —  a  doctrine  not  offi- 
cially sanctioned  till  the  present  century.  It  is  there- 
fore like  leaning  on  a  broken  reed,  when  one's  assu- 
rance of  faith  is  made  to  depend  on  such  alleged 
infallibility. 

2.  The  rationalistic  doctrine.  The  rationalist 
finds  all  external  authority  fallible,  and  concludes  that 
the  only  means  of  arriving  at  an  assurance  of  faith 
is  to  follow  the  light  of  one's  own  reason.  True  belief, 
be  argues ,  can  exist  only  when  one  sees  reason  for 
believing ;  and  of  this  one  must  be  his  own  judge. 
Other  men  may  contribute  information  and  use  argu- 
ments ;  but  only  one's  own  reason  can  yield  assent, 
and  this  assent  must  be  an  intelligent  and  voluntary 


g  CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

act,  the  result  of  inward  conviction,  not  a  blind  ac- 
ceptance of  another's  person's  dictum. 

Now  it  is  true  that  in  some  sense  a  man's  reason 
and  conscience  must  independently  accept,  as  autho- 
ritative, whatever  or  whoever  is  taken  as  the  standard 
of  truth.  A  Roman  Catholic  must  have  some  reason 
for  regarding  the  Pope  as  infallible.  If  his  reason  is 
not  convinced  that  there  is  really  such  an  authority, 
then  he  cannot  exercise  implicit  confidence  in  the 
Papal  utterances ,  and  therefore  can  have  no  assu- 
rance of  faith  in  them.  So  if  one  makes  the  Bible 
the  ultimate  and  inerrant  source  of  authority  in  reli- 
gious things,  he  must  have  a  reason  for  such  faith  in 
the  Bible.  In  short,  whatever  may  be  taken  as  an 
infallible  guide,  unless  the  faith  is  a  purely  blind 
faith ,  and  therefore  no  genuine ,  intelligent  faith  at 
all,  the  individual  reason  must  be  active  and  decisive 
in  the  choice  which  is  made  of  the  authority  to  be 
followed. 

But  the  case  before  us  is  that  of  him  who  recog- 
nizes no  external  authority  at  all  as  infallible ,  and 
who  looks  solely  to  his  own  rational  and  spiritual 
intuitions  and  judgments  as  his  ground  of  assu- 
rance respecting  religious  truth.  Such  a  man 
finds  all  external  authorities  fallible.  He  regards  it 
as  an  unworthy  surrender  of  personal  independence 
to  resign  to  some  one  else  tlie  right  to  dictate  what 
he  shall  believe.  He  sees  no  way  to  assurance  but 
through  personal  conviction;  and  such  conviction  must 
be  the  free  action  of  the  mind  responding  to  the  facts 
set  before  it. 

But  what  each  rationalist  claims  for  himself  he 
must  concede  to  others.     If  one  man,  by  the  exercise 


THE  SEARCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE.  'J 

of  his  reason,  comes  to  a  fixed  conclusion  and  to  a 
comfortable  assurance  of  faith,  another  man,  by  the 
exercise  of  his  reason,  comes  to  a  very  different  con- 
clusion, and  yet  has  an  equally  confident  assurance. 
But  the  very  fact  of  the  endless  differences  which  are 
found  in  men's  opinions  is  proof  sufficient  that  the  in- 
dividual reason  is  no  infallible  authority;  so  that  if 
any  one,  relying  simply  on  his  own  reason,  feels  a  per- 
fect confidence  in  the  faith  which  he  has  wrought  out, 
he  is  logically  bound  to  affirm  his  reason  to  be  the 
reason  by  which  all  others  ought  to  be  regulated. 
But  this  would  be  an  abandonment  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  rationalism.  And  it  clearly 
follows  that  absolute  dependence  on  the  individual 
reason  cannot  rationally  furnish  a  ground  of  assu- 
rance of  faith. 

3.  The  mystical  doctrine.  This  is  a  modification 
of  the  foregoing.  The  mystic  finds  his  ultimate  au- 
thority in  an  immediate  divine  inspiration  or  communi- 
cation. But  even  if  the  alleged  inspiration  could  be 
distinguished  from  the  deliverances  of  the  reason,  the 
practical  difficulty  presents  itself  here  as  in  the  case 
of  the  rationalist,  that  the  individual  inspirations, 
since  they  are  not  harmonious  with  one  another, 
cannot  all  be  infallible,  and  consequently  none  of 
them  can  be  depended  on  implicitly.  But  there  is 
the  further  difficulty,  that  there  can  be  no  sure  line 
drawn  between  the  alleged  inspiration  and  the  simple 
verdict  of  the  reason.  Processes  of  reasoning  are 
often  rapid  and  scarcely  manifest  themselves  in  the 
consciousness.  A  judgment  formed  suddenly  on  the 
ground  of  facts  known  may  seem  like  a  direct  inspi- 
ration.   A  mere  impulse,  not  traceable  to  any  definite 


g  CHEIST  AND  CEITICISM. 

previous  process  of  thought,  may  be  called  an  inspi- 
ration, though  really  nothing  but  an  individual  conceit 
or  whim.  Manifestly  such  a  pretended  source  of 
infallible  direction  is  anything  but  infallible;  and  an 
assurance  of  faith  resting  on  it  is  without  a  solid 
foundation. 

4.  The  Protestant  doctrine.  According  to  this 
the  Bible  is  to  be  regarded  as  of  divine  and  infallible 
authority.  But  here  too  it  is  no  easy  task  to  justify 
to  doubters,  or  even  to  ourselves,  the  validity  of  this 
assumption.  Before  the  Bible  is  accepted  as  the 
ultimate  authority,  the  individual  must  somehow  be 
persuaded  to  accept  it  as  such.  This  persuasion  may 
be  merely  an  unquestioning  faith  in  the  credibility  of 
one's  instructors.  Or  it  may  be  a  conviction  resulting 
from  a  consideration  of  the  arguments  that  are  urged 
in  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  Biblical  infallibility.  In 
the  former  case  the  persuasion,  so  far  as  it  rests  simply 
on  faith  in  the  assertions  of  one's  elders,  has  no  more 
valid  basis  than  any  transmitted  superstition,  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  parents  or  teachers  them- 
selves have  a  solid  reason  for  their  faith.  And  so 
we  are  brought  to  the  second  ground  of  the  faith,  and 
inquire  whether  the  reasons  for  it  are  sufficient  to 
justify  one  in  resting  on  the  Bible  as  absolutely  in- 
fallible. 

Now  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Biblical  infallibility  it 
is  obvious  that  it  cannot  be  maintained  on  the  ground 
that  its  propositions,  like  those  of  mathematics, 
compel  universal  assent.  On  the  contrary,  the  Bible 
is  accepted  as  authoritative  only  by  a  part  of  those 
who  know  it;  and  even  multitudes  of  those  who  prize 
it  most  highly  think   that  it  contains  errors.     From 


THE  SEAKCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE.  9 

the  very  nature  of  the  case,  moreover,  it  cannot  be 
demonstrated  that  a  book  of  history  is  inerrant,  unless 
we  can  go  back  to  the  sources  of  information  and 
verify  all  the  statements,  and  thus  make  it  certain 
that  the  book  is  free  from  mistakes.  But  such  a 
verification  is  for  the  most  part  impossible.  How  can 
any  one  directly  prove  that  the  stories  about  Abraham, 
Samson,  or  David  are  all  authentic  ?  It  is  not  enough 
to  say  that  they  cannot  be  proved  to  be  incorrect. 
For  we  are  now  dealing  with  the  problem  of  certitude : 
how  can  men  be  assured  that  the  Bible  gives  them  an 
infallible  body  of  religious  history  and  doctrine?  In 
general,  all  histories  are  assumed  to  be  more  or  less 
imperfect.  It  is  not  claimed  for  them  that  they  are 
inerrant.  The  presumption  always  is  that  errors 
creep  into  the  most  conscientiously  prepared  works. 
This  presumption  must,  in  the  case  of  the  Bible,  be 
overthrown,  if  it  is  to  be  made  out  to  be  an  exception 
in  respect  to  infallibility.  Now  it  plainly  cannot  be 
overthrown  by  a  detailed  demonstration  that  all  the 
statements  of  the  Bible  are  strictly  true;  such  a 
demonstration  is  impossible.  Some  other  method  of 
treatment  must  be  resorted  to,  or  the  presumption 
against  the  strict  infallibility  of  the  Bible  must 
stand. 

And  accordingly  the  proof  of  the  inerrancy  of  the 
Bible  is  attempted  in  another  way.  It  is  argued  that 
we  have  evidence  that  the  book  is  so  peculiarly  in- 
spired that  it  can  be  absolutely  trusted.  This  argu- 
ment rests  ultimately  on  the  assumption  that  a  divine 
revelation  has  been  made,  and  that  in  order  to  make 
it  effectual  the  written  embodiment  of  it  must  be 
free  from  error.    It  is   assumed  that  there  is  a  God. 


IQ  CHRIST  AND  CEITICISM. 

that  God  is  infallible,  and  that  he  must  have  secured 
a  faultless  expression  of  his  will  and  ways.  The  argu- 
ment for  Biblical  infallibility  rests  on  the  prior  assump- 
tion of  the  divine  infallibility.  And  the  case  is  similar, 
if  we  put  Jesus  Christ  in  the  place  of  God  in  the  ar- 
gument. When  it  is  argued  that  we  may  assume  the 
apostles  to  have  been  inspired  because  Jesus  prom- 
ised that  they  should  be  inspired,  the  argument  is 
valid  only  as  we  assume  the  supernatural  power  and 
absolute  trustworthiness  of  Jesus.  Unless  he  is  ante- 
cedently assumed  to  be  an  infallible  authority,  this 
argument  for  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  inconclu- 
sive. The  same  can  be  said  of  this  as  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  argument  for  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope. 
In  either  case  the  authority  is  supposed  to  be  a  dele- 
gated one:  Christ  is  supposed  in  the  one  case  to  have 
delegated  his  authority  to  a  succession  of  living 
representatives ;  in  the  other  he  is  supposed  to  have 
delegated  to  certain  men  the  right  and  power  to  commu- 
nicate a  faultless  record  of  his  gospel  to  the  world. 
In  either  case  the  ultimate  authority  is  assumed  to 
be  the  Lord  Jesus  himself. 

5.  This  brings  us  then  to  the  last  of  the  prin- 
cipal methods  by  which  religious  assurance  is  sought. 
Christ,  it  is  said,  is  the  ultimate  authority  for  all 
Christians,  so  that  we  need  not  anxiously  attempt  to 
defend  the  exact  accuracy  of  every  part  of  the  Bible. 
If  we  believe  in  him  and  follow  him,  we  can  safely 
let  criticism  have  free  range,  and  not  be  troubled  at 
any  discoveries  it  may  make  of  defects  and  mistakes 
in  the  Biblical  writers.  As  Christians  we  put  our 
supreme  faith  in  Christ,  not  in  the  utterances  of  any 
of  his  followers.     Inasmuch  as  the  ultimate  ground 


THE  SEARCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE.  ^^ 

of  our  faith  in  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  our  faith 
in  the  authority  of  Christ,  nothing  is  gained,  while 
much  may  be  lost,  by  attempting  to  defend,  as  abso- 
lutely infallible,  everything  found  in  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  Why  not,  it  is  urged,  leave  the  Bible  to  be 
freely  judged  according  to  its  merits,  since  the  found- 
ation of  our  faith  in  any  case  does  not  rest  upon  it, 
but  upon  Him  of  whom  it  treats? 

This  seems,  therefore,  to  be  the  only  defensible 
ground  on  which  one  can  rest  when  assurance  of 
Christian  faith  is  sought.  Christ  is  the  object  of  a 
Christian's  faith;  and  however  much  he  may  find  that 
is  questionable  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  this  faith 
can  remain  undisturbed.  Those  who  take  this  posi- 
tion, it  may  be  said,  are  not  exposed  to  the  objection 
which  confronts  the  rationalist :  that  the  differences 
among  the  several  individuals  who  find  in  their  reason 
the  ultimate  standard  of  truth  show  that  the  individual 
reason  cannot  be  the  trustworthy  standard.  Christ, 
as  standing  above  all  men,  is  accepted  as  the  one 
authority  by  which  the  aberrations  of  the  individual 
reason  are  to  be  corrected.  They  also  escape  the 
objection  that  can  be  urged  against  the  Papal  doc- 
trine: that  a  mere  man,  chosen  by  other  men  to  be 
the  authoritative  exponent  of  Christ's  will  cannot 
rationally  be  depended  on  as  infallible.  Both  the 
Protestant  and  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  ultimately 
rest  on  the  assumption  of  the  supreme,  infallible 
authority  of  Christ.  The  Bible  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  Pope  on  the  other  are  admitted  to  be  infallible 
only  because  Christ  is  first  accepted  as  the  supreme 
authority.  Why,  then,  rest  our  faith  on  the  secondary, 
derivative  ground  rather  than  on  the  primary  one? 


12  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

Here,  then,  we  seem  to  have  an  impregnable  po- 
sition, and  one  which  enables  us  calmly  to  await 
and  accept  whatever  scientific  investigation  may  bring 
to  light  as  regards  the  history  or  the  character  of  the 
Bible.  And  if  any  one  of  these  five  positions  is  to  be 
adopted  as  the  exclusive  one,  the  latter  certainly  is 
to  be  preferred  to  any  of  the  others.  But  it  is  mani- 
fest that  we  are  after  all  not  at  the  end  of  our  search. 
For  the  question  at  once  forces  itself  upon  us:  On 
what  ground  is  Jesus  Christ  himself  accepted  as  an  in" 
fallible  authority?  Have  we  any  direct  intuition,  like 
a  sixth  sense,  which  informs  us  that  he  is  what  he 
has  been  reported  to  be?  Is  there  anything  self- 
evident  in  the  proposition,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is 
one  who  can  be  absolutely  trusted?  Such  a  claim 
can  hardly  be  made  in  view  of  the  fact  that  only  a 
minority  of  mankind,  and  not  even  all  of  those  who 
know  about  him,  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  his  spiritual 
authority.  Surely,  then,  those  who  profess  to  believe 
in  his  authority  as  an  ultimate  and  faultless  standard 
ought  to  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that 
is  in  them. 

II.  How,  then,  can  Christians  reasonably  justify 
to  themselves  or  to  others  their  certitude  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ?  How  does  the  faith  originate?  On 
what  grounds  does  it  rest  ?  In  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions we  need  to  consider  the  actual  experience  of 
those  who  cherish  a  hearty  faith  in  Christ. 

1.  In  the  first  instance  Christ  is  brought  before 
one's  mind,  as  an  object  of  faith,  by  tradition.  The 
child,  or  the  heathen,  or  the  unbeliever,  is  told  of 
Jesus  as  a  Saviour,  believes  the  testimony,  and  then 
personally  exercises  faith  in  the  Saviour  thus  made 


THE  SEARCH  AFTEE  ASSURANCE.  j^3 

known.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  usual  method  of 
acquiring  knowledge.  For  nearly  everything  we  learn 
we  depend  on  the  testimony  of  other  men.  That  the 
earth  moves  around  the  sun,  that  Milton  wrote  the 
Paradise  Lost  —  such  propositions  are  accepted  in 
most  cases  on  the  mere  ground  of  testimony.  It  is 
assumed  of  course  that  there  were  good  reasons  for  the 
original  propagation  of  such  propositions;  hut  what 
those  reasons  were,  most  people  do  not  undertake  to 
find  out,  and  could  not  if  they  would.  It  is  simply 
a  necessity  of  human  life  to  take  on  trust  a  great  part 
of  what  we  learn,  whether  the  knowledge  relates  to 
history,  natural  science,  or  religion. 

There  is  accordingly  always  a  presumption  in  favor 
of  what  is  handed  down  by  tradition.  Very  often 
indeed  it  may  turn  out  to  be  an  untrustworthy  tradi- 
tion; but  the  presumption  is  in  its  favor  until  it  is 
disproved.  And  when  careful  research  has  proved  it 
to  be  a  mistake,  this  new  proposition,  being  communi- 
cated from  one  to  another,  becomes  in  its  turn  a 
tradition  which  in  general  is  taken  on  trust  just  as  the 
previous  erroneous  one  had  been.  Nothing,  therefore, 
can  be  more  inconsiderate  than  to  assert  or  imply 
that  any  proposition  is  to  be  distrusted,  if  one's  faith 
in  it  rests  only  on  tradition.  Life  would  not  be 
worth  living,  if  men  were  allowed  to  take  nothing  on 
trust,  but  were  obliged  to  trace  every  alleged  truth 
back  to  its  ultimate  ground. 

And  in  the  case  of  Christianity  the  evidence  of 
tradition  has  peculiar  force,  because  it  has  come 
down  in  an  unbroken  line,  has  penetrated  many  differ- 
ent races,  has  broken  down  ancient  superstitions  and 
religions,  has  not  only  maintained  itself  amongst  the 


14  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

most  enlightened  nations,  but  has  been  the  source  of 
enlightenment  wherever  it  has  been  carried.  It  had 
no  obscure  origin,  but  sprang  up  in  a  civilized  age, 
and  at  once  found  its  way  into  acceptance  among  the 
most  civilized  peoples.  It  is  a  tradition ,  moreover, 
which  has  been  transmitted  by  an  organized  body, 
the  Christian  Church.  It  is  a  tradition  which  holds 
the  Church  together.  There  is,  therefore,  an  immense 
presumption  in  favor  of  the  correctness  of  the  funda- 
mental propositions  to  which  this  tradition  bears 
witness.  Christianity  is  something  which  at  all  events 
should  be  assumed  to  be  true  until  the  opposite  is 
demonstrated. 

But  tradition  7nay  after  all  be  misleading.  In 
order  to  full  assurance  of  faith  something  more  may 
be  required  than  the  mere  fact  that  a  weighty  tra- 
dition justifies  it.     And  there  is  more.     For — 

2.  Christian  experience  confirms  the  truth  of  the 
tradition.  Since  Christianity  is  not  put  forth  as  a 
mere  fact  of  history  or  science,  but  as  a  system  of 
facts  and  truths  that  are  designed  to  have  a  great  and 
salutary  effect  on  the  character  and  lives  of  men,  it 
is  pertinent  to  ask  whether  the  intended  effect  is  pro- 
duced. If  it  is  not,  then  this  failure  would  go  far 
towards  weakening  the  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
truthfulness  of  the  tradition.  If  it  is,  then  this  fulfil- 
ment of  the  professed  object  of  Christianity  becomes 
a  powerful  witness  for  the  rightfulness  of  its  claims. 

And  this  evidence  is  found  in  large  measure. 
Wherever  Christ  is  heartily  embraced  and  trusted, 
there  results  inward  purity  and  peace.  This  faith 
puts  a  check  upon  selfishness,  rescues  men  from  the 
power  of  vicious  tastes  and   habits,    nerves    them    to 


THE  SEARCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE.  l^ 

bear  suffering  and  persecution  with  patience  and 
cheerfulness,  gives  comfort  in  times  of  sorrow  and 
adversity,  and  makes  the  sinner  a  new  man  through 
the  consciousness  of  being  made  a  child  of  God  and 
heir  of  eternal  life.  The  proffer  of  forgiveness  to  the 
penitent,  the  revelation  of  the  divine  love  and  the  exhi- 
bition of  that  love  in  the  human  life  of  the  Son  of 
God,  the  promise  of  constant  aid  from  the  Spirit  of 
God  in  the  contest  with  sinful  affections  —  this  is 
something  that  meets  the  wants  of  men;  it  commends 
itself  to  their  faith ;  and  when  experience  has  confirm- 
ed the  hopes  created  by  the  promises  of  the  gospel, 
the  presumption  in  its  favor  which  came  from  the 
external  testimony  becomes  transformed  into  a  joyful 
assurance,  so  that  believers  can  say,  with  the  towns- 
men of  the  Samaritan  woman,  ''Now  we  believe,  not 
because  of  thy  speaking;  for  we  have  heard  for  our- 
selves, and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of 
the  world". 

Now  this  evidence  of  Christian  experience  is  mani- 
festly of  immense  weight.  If  it  were  the  evidence 
furnished  by  a  single  or  a  very  limited  experience, 
it  would  be  easy  to  attribute  it  to  a  pleasing  delusion.. 
Fancy  and  fanaticism  can  do  wonderful  things  in 
transforming  men;  and  Christianity,  even  though 
apparently  doing  good,  might  still  be  supposed  to  be 
nothing  more  than  a  happy  fiction  which  stimulates 
and  elevates  men.  Just  as  a  novel  may  instruct  and 
help  one,  even  though  known  to  be  a  fictitious  work, 
so  and  still  more  the  story  of  Christ  might  do  good, 
especially  when  (as  is  the  fact)  it  is  supposed  to 
be  true. 

But   it    is    quite   another   thing   when  the  faith   in 


Ig  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

question  is  shared  by  a  vast  multitude  and  serves  as 
a  bond  of  union  among  them.  One  man's  experience 
is  confirmed  by  that  of  others.  The  suspicion  that 
the  belief  and  the  results  of  it  may  have  come  from 
an  illusion  is  dissipated  when  it  is  found  that  com- 
munities and  nations  accept  the  same  doctrines  and 
are  moved  and  elevated  by  faith   in  the  same  Jesus. 

This  evidence  does  not  cover  all  the  experiences 
and  beliefs  which  have  been  called  Christian.  But  it 
does  cover  the  great  central  fact  of  the  commanding 
influence  and  supreme  authority  of  Christ  and  the 
uniqueness  of  character  and  function  which  the 
Christian  Church  has  always  ascribed  to  him.  The 
argument,  in  brief,  is  this:  Christianity  is  a  beneficent 
institution;  it  has  been  handed  down  from  generation 
to  generation  as  of  divine  origin ;  the  life  and  sayings 
of  its  Founder  have  been  preserved  and  communi- 
cated; and  the  truth  of  the  tradition  is  confirmed  by 
the  beneficence  of  its  effects.  The  Church  has  a  right 
to  assume  that  what  has  maintained  itself  so  long 
and  has  proved  its  worthiness  by  the  experience  of 
vast  multitudes  is  to  be  accepted  as  a  settled  fact. 
And  individuals  who  have  found  themselves  blessed 
and  saved  by  their  faith  in  Christ  have  a  right  to 
cherish  unwavering  confidence  that  their  faith  has  an 
impregnable  foundation. 

Still  it  is  possible  to  object  that  all  this  beneficent 
effect  of  Christianity  might  conceivably  come  from  a 
false  faith  believed  to  he  true.  When  a  man  repents 
of  sin  and  enjoys  the  inspiration  of  thinking  that 
God  has  forgiven  him,  might  not  the  assurance  of 
forgiveness  be  just  as  helpful  in  case  the  Christian 
doctrine  is  a  pleasant  fiction  as  it  is  on  the  supposition 


THE  SEARCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE. 


17 


of  its  being  solid  truth  ?  At  the  best,  in  one's  spirit- 
ual experiences  one  can  be  conscious  only  of  what 
one's  own  self  feels,  thinks,  hopes,  resolves,  etc.  If 
the  Christian  portrayal  of  Christ  and  of  the  divine 
character  and  doings  is  only  thought  to  be  true,  might 
not  all  that  is  alleged  to  have  come  as  the  result  of 
Christianity  in  respect  of  inward  peace,  deliverance 
from  the  burden  of  guilt,  the  awakening  of  benevolent 
feeling,  etc.,  have  come  also  from  a  piously  and  skil- 
fully devised  fiction? 

The  first  and  obvious  answer  to  such  an  insinua- 
tion is  that,  even  if  such  a  thing  were  conceivable, 
there  is  an  overwhelming  presumption  against  its  being 
the  fact.  In  the  face  of  a  long-standing  tradition, 
contended  against  at  the  outset,  but  maintaining 
itself  through  all  these  centuries  and  proving  its  truth 
by  its  power  to  regenerate  human  character,  it  can 
avail  little  to  say  that  all  this  may  be  a  baseless 
fancy.  Until  it  is  proved  to  be  a  mere  fancy,  it 
must  stand  as  historic  truth.  So  far,  however,  from 
this  proofs  being  forthcoming,  just  the  opposite  is 
established  by  the  appeal  to  history.  This  brings  us 
to  the  third  ground  of  assurance  on  which  the  Christian 
faith  rests. 

3.  Christianity  rests  on  a  solid  basis  of  historic 
fact.  The  Christian  Scriptures  furnish  the  proof  that 
Christ  and  his  gospel  were  no  fiction,  but  well  attested 
realities.  The  writers  were  either  contemporaries  and 
witnesses  of  the  events  narrated,  or  else  were  asso- 
ciated with  those  who  were  witnesses. 

The  New  Testament  is  an  integral  part  of 
Christian  tradition.     The  gospel  was  indeed  at   first, 

2 


]^3  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

as  a  matter  of  course ,  proclaimed  orally.  The 
Christian  Church  was  established  before  the  New 
Testament  was  written.  But  what  was  thus  orally 
transmitted  was  soon  put  into  the  more  fixed  and  less 
corruptible  form  of  written  records,  which  present  us 
a  sketch  of  the  life  and  sayings  of  Christ  and  the 
body  of  truth  which  his  disciples  derived  therefrom. 
The  oral  transmission  of  Christian  truth  still  contin- 
ued, and  it  continues  to  this  day.  But  the  written 
records  have  also  been  transmitted  as  the  authoritative 
exposition  of  the  essential  facts  and  truths  of  the 
gospel.  The  oral  tradition,  however  much  it  may 
have  added  to  the  written,  or  even  corrupted  it,  has 
never  avowedly  contradicted  it.  This  has  always  been 
acknowledged  as  authoritative,  and  has  become  more 
and  more  indispensable,  the  farther  removed  men  are 
from  the  beginnings  of  Christian  history.  It  has  had 
to  serve  as  a  check  upon  the  vagaries  of  fancy,  upon 
the  distortions  of  fact  and  of  doctrine  which  would  in- 
evitably spring  up,  were  there  no  such  fixed  standard 
and  ultimate  court  of  appeal. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  the  threefold  cord  of  evidence 
that  furnishes  the  warrant  of  assurance  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ.  And  the  warrant  is  stronger  than  that 
which  can  be  adduced  for  the  greater  part  of  what 
men  surely  believe.  The  most  of  what  is  called 
historic  or  scientific  knowledge  rests  simply  on  what 
are  supposed  to  be  credible  records  of  historic  or 
scientific  facts.  These  records  relate  to  matters  with 
which  one's  personal  experience  has  little  or  nothing 
to  do ,  and  receive ,  therefore .  no  confirmation  from 
such  experience.  Nor  is  there  any  tradition  that  goes 
before  and  prepares  the  way  for  faith   in  the  written 


THE  SEAKCH  AFTER  ASSURANCE.  ,  ][^ 

records.  The  faith  rests  practically  on  the  bare 
written  record  alone.  The  great  mass  of  human 
knowledge  has  no  other  foundation  than  this.  There 
are  indeed  many  traditions  which  filter  down  through 
the  generations,  some  more,  some  less,  trustworthy. 
There  are  superstitions,  and  there  are  distorted 
accounts  of  ancient  events,  which  serve  to  amuse  or 
harrow  the  feelings,  but  which  are  left  to  be  trans- 
mitted as  they  may  be,  continually  modified  by  the 
imagination,  having  no  root  in  well-attested  ancient 
records  and  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  serious 
affairs  of  life.  The  Christian  tradition,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  transmitted  by  a  compact  and  intelligent 
body  —  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  communicated 
to  each  new  generation  as  a  precious  heritage.  It  is 
inculcated,  moreover,  as  something  the  truth  and  value 
of  which  is  to  be  verified  by  personal  experience,  by 
a  regenerating  and  beatifying  effect  on  the  life.  And 
then  back  of  all  this  there  is  a  well-attested  authentic 
ancient  historic  record,  vouching  for  the  genuineness 
of  the  events  and  truths  which  constitute  the  basis 
of  the  Christian  life. 

These  three  grounds  of  assurance  confirm  one 
another  and  cannot  be  dissociated.  Christian  expe- 
rience begins  by  laying  hold  of  that  which  Christian 
tradition  brings  before  us.  It  is  a  continuous  repro- 
duction ,  in  each  new  generation  or  in  hitherto  un- 
christianized  nations,  of  the  faith  that  is  handed  down. 
But  the  tradition  itself  is  indissolubly  connected  with 
the  Biblical  record  as  its  earliest  traceable  form  and 
its  permanent  embodiment.  The  tradition  authenti- 
cates itself  by  means  of  the  record;   and  accordingly 


20  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

the  written  history,  though  itself  supported  in  turn 
by  the  continuous  experience  of  the  Church,  is,  among 
the  evidences  for  Christianity,  the  ultimate  and  deci- 
sive factor.  Christian  assurance  stands  or  falls  with 
the  verification  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures. 


CHAPTER  n. 

CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

The  opinion  is  frequently  expressed  that  the  crit- 
ical study  of  the  Scriptures  is  something  so  entirely 
distinct  from  faith  in  Christ  that  the  one  cannot  de- 
termine the  other.  The  critical  process,  it  is  said,  may 
take  any  course  it  will,  and  yet  the  Christian  faith 
remain  undisturbed.  The  faith  being  purely  a  spirit- 
ual act,  having  to  do  with  the  present  living  Christ, 
and  literary  criticism  being  a  purely  scientific  process, 
dealing  with  the  characteristics  and  composition  of 
ancient  books,  the  two  things ,  it  is  said,  should  be 
kept  entirely  distinct.  Criticism  may,  therefore,  it  is 
thought,  have  a  perfectly  free  range  and  reach  any 
results  whatever,  without  endangering  Christian  faith. ^ 

*  This  seems  to  be  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  following 
passage  in  a  recent  work  (Orello  Cone:  Gospel  Criticism  and 
Historical  Christianity,  p.  319):  "Now  although  the  invali- 
dation of  the  Gospels  would  not  indeed  destroy  Christianity, 
for  it  is  indestructible,  he  who  subjects  them  to  a  free  handling 
and  reconstruction  may  well  be  called  upon  to  give  an  account 
of  his  results,  whether  there  remain  a  kernel  or  a  husk".  Simi- 
larly Prof.  G.  F.  Moore  (Andover  Review,  vol.  x.  p.  339)  says, 
"Reconciliation   to    God   in   Christ    through  the  forgiveness  of 


22  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

This  has  a  re-assuring  sound.  For  certainly 
Christianity  itself  is  of  more  consequence  than  any 
particular  book  that  treats  of  Christianity.  And  if 
we  are  sure  of  maintaining  the  chief  thing,  we  can 
afford  to  be  indifferent  about  the  other.  But  we  do 
not  need  to  think  long,  before  we  find  that  the  case 
is  not  so  clear  as  it  is  represented  to  be. 

How  do  we  come  to  know  that  Christ  is  a  person 
worthy  of  implicit  faith  ?  It  will  not  do  to  answer  that 
we  have  received  the  assurance  from  our  elders  and 
teachers.  This  only  raises  the  further  question,  How 
did  they  and  all  preceding  generations  obtain  the 
assurance  ?  How  did  Peter,  John,  and  the  other  orig- 
inal disciples  of  Christ  come  to  believe  in  him  as 
the  sinless  Son  of  God?  Our  only  evidence  is  that  of 
history;  and  the  historical  evidence  is  found  in  the 
New  Testament.  Traditions  distinct  from  everything 
there  found,  even  if  we  had  them,  could  not  be 
regarded  as  possessing  any  substantial  value,  unless 
they  could  be  historically  traced  to  their  sources  and 
their  correctness  verified.  But  such  a  verification 
would  be ,  in  the  present  case ,  quite  impracticable. 
Moreover,  the  tradition  that  we  do  have  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  New  Testament  contains  the  true  account  of 
the  origin  of  Christianity.  If  these  writings  are 
authentic,  they  contain  the  substance  of  what  is  to  be 
believed  about  Christ;  if  they  are  unauthentic,  then 
we  are  left  wholly  to  vague  conjecture,  when  we  try 
to  determine  who  and  what  Jesus  Christ  was. 

sins—  this,  the  heart  of  the  gospel,  is  the  absolute  in  Christianity, 
which  no  discoveries  in  science,  no  historical  research,  no  in- 
tellectual enlightenment ,  no  moral  or  religious  progress ,  can 
touch". 


CHEISTIAN  FAITH  AND  XEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         23 

So    nmch    seems    to    be    indisputable.     But    what 
follows?     Certainly  this   follows:    that  if  destructive 
criticism  is  able  to  invalidate  the  historical  trustworthi- 
ness   of   the    New   Testament,    it  thereby   overihroivs 
the  foundations   of   the    Christian  faith.     It  would  not 
indeed  disprove  the    historical   facts    of  Christianity; 
it  would  not  destroy  whetever  good  has  come  directly 
or  indirectly  from  the  adoption  of  the  Christian  faith. 
But  it  would   prove  that  that  faith   is   without   any 
valid  right  to  be.     It  would  show  that  our  conceptions 
of  Christ  are   largely,   if  not   wholly,    legendary   and 
false.     The  very  foundations  of  Christianity  would  be 
knocked  away.     Any  one  who  after  this  should    con- 
tinue   to    hold    the    traditional   view    concerning    the 
unique  character  and  mission   of  Christ  could   do   so 
only  by  bidding  defiance  to  all  the  dictates  of  histor- 
ical   evidence    and    sound    common     sense.      Plainly, 
therefore,  it  cannot  be  truly  said  that  fail^  in  Christ 
is  in  such  a  sense  independent   of  faith  in  the  Bible 
that  it   would    stand    unimpaired,    even    though  the 
Gospel  narratives  and  the  apostolic  testimony  concern- 
ing him  should  be  proved  to  be  without  any  historical 
value.    On  the  contrary,  if,  as  some  critics  have  main- 
tained, the  New  Testament  is  wholly   untrustworthy, 
and    we    therefore    practically    know    nothing   about 
Jesus  Christ,  then  it  would  be  pure  fatuity  to  assert 
that    criticism    cannot     disturb     the    foundations     of 
Christianity. 

We  seem,  then,  to  have  arrived  at  a  conclusion 
the  opposite  of  that  before  accepted;  that  is,  we  seem 
to  make  Christian  faith  depend  on  faith  in  the  credi- 
bility of  the  New  Testament.  How  shall  the  apparent 
contradiction  be  removed?     For  certainly  both  propo- 


24  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

sitions  seem  to  be  justifiable.  It  has  become  almost 
a  platitude  to  say  that  Christianity  was  founded  before 
there  was  any  New  Testament,  and  that  therefore 
the  original  faith  in  Christ  could  not  have  depended 
on  faith  in  the  New  Testament,  but  was  rather  a 
faith  exercised  directly  towards  Jesus  himself.  This 
is  of  course  indisputable.  And  it  is  also  true  that  to 
this  day  faith  in  Christ  is  instilled  into  the  young  or 
the  unlettered  before  they  are  able  to  appreciate  the 
arguments  for  or  against  the  authenticity  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  apparent  contradiction  is  not  removed  by 
affirming  that  the  general  result  of  critical  study  is 
to  confirm  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels.  It  may  be 
true  that  thus  far  the  weight  of  scholarly  judgment 
favors  the  assumption  of  the  substantial  veracity  of 
the  New  Testament.  But  the  more  one  lays  stress 
on  this,  the  more  it  is  insisted  that  critical  research 
has  established  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures, so  much  the  more  is  it  thereby  confessed  that  it 
is  an  important  thing  to  make  out  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  are  truthful  historians;  in  other  words,  it  is 
confessed  that  Christian  faith  in  some  sense  does 
depend  on  the  assurance  that  the  New  Testament  tells 
the  truth.  Indeed,  if  there  were  not  such  a  conviction 
on  the  part  of  Christian  scholars,  why  should  they 
have  devoted  so  much  time  and  strength  to  the  work 
of  defending  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  books?  If 
Christianity  is  perfectly  secure,  and  Christ,  as  the 
object  of  our  faith,  is  so  well  known  and  so  absolu- 
tely superior  to  all  the  assaults  of  skeptical  critics, 
why  spend  so  much  energy  in  defending  that  which 
we  should    never   feel  the   loss  of?     It  is  one  thing 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  25 

proudly  to  affirm  that  the  Christian  Scriptures  never 
can  be  invalidated ;  it  is  quite  another,  to  affirm  that, 
even  if  they  should  be  invalidated,  Christianity  would 
still  be  undisturbed. 

We  have,  therefore,  still  to  answer  the  question, 
how  we  are  to  reconcile  the  two  seemingly  irreconcil- 
able propositions:  that  faith  in  Christ  is  anterior  to 
faith  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  a  critical  under- 
mining of  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament 
would  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  overthrow  of 
Christianity. 

The  question  can  perhaps  be  best  answered  by 
making  use  of  an  analogy.  George  Washington  is 
reputed  to  have  been  the  most  prominent  actor  in  the 
revolution  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the 
independence  of  the  United  States.  So  conspicuous 
was  he,  and  so  vital  apparently  his  agency  in  accom- 
plishing the  work  undertaken,  that  he  has  been  called 
the  Father  of  his  country.  Now  supposing  the  general 
impression  about  the  man  to  be  correct,  we  must 
assume  that  those  who  lived  with  him,  those  who 
fought  under  him,  and  those  who  with  him  deliberated 
concerning  the  adoption  of  the  new  Constitution,  knew 
him  and  had  faith  in  him.  And  this  knowledge  and 
confidence  was  the  result  of  direct  personal  acquaint- 
ance or  else  of  the  oral  testimony  of  those  who  did 
know  him  personally.  This  acquaintance  with  him 
and  esteem  of  him  was  of  course  not  the  result  of 
any  written  history  of  him  or  of  his  times;  for  none 
was  yet  written.  But  since  then  such  histories  have 
appeared,  and  now,  after  the  lapse  of  a  century, 
these  histories  are  the  principal,  we  may  say,  practi- 
cally the  only,  source  of  our  definite  knowledge  about 


25  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

Washington  and  his  career.  And  the  earlier  those 
records  are,  the  more  trustworthy  are  they.  No  one 
depends  on  transmitted  oral  testimony  —  on  the  un- 
certain accuracy  of  human  memory,  especially  when 
many  links  intervene  between  him  and  the  person  or 
event  told  about  —  as  bearing  any  comparison  in 
point  of  trustworthiness  with  the  records  that  were 
written  soon  after  the  time  in  question  and  have  been 
preserved. 

Now     let    us    suppose    that    Marshall's    Life    of 
Washington  were  the  only  history  of  those  times  left 
to  us,  that  all  earlier  and  contemporary  records  used 
by   him   have   perished,    so  that    we    depend    for  our 
knowledge  of  Washington  on  that  Life  and  on  what- 
ever oral  tradition  there  may  still  be  concerning  him. 
Manifestly  the  oral  tradition  would  be  regarded  as  of 
small  account.     The  written  Life  would  be  the  store- 
house of  information  on  which  all  would  depend.    But 
let  us   suppose    further   that   critical   scholars   should 
examine  Marshall's  work,    and  make    out   that    it   is 
utterly     fabulous     —    that    the    whole     story    about 
Washington  is  legendary,  and  that  we  are  left  without 
any  trustworthy    information    about  him.     If  such   a 
critical  judgment  should  be  established,  if  the  histor- 
ical  value    of  the   Life   were    effectually   overthrown, 
then  as  rational  men  we  should  have  to  say  that  the 
traditional  notions  about  AVashington  are   false,    that 
the  enthusiastic  admiration  that  has  been  bestowed  on 
him  is  entirely  misplaced,  and  that  we  have  no  right 
to  regard  him  as  the  hero  that  he  has  had  the  name 
of  being,    even  if  we  believe  that  the   man  ever  lived 
at  all. 

It  would  avail   nothing   to  say  that  Washington's 


CHEISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         27 

contemporaries  admired  and  trusted  him  during  his  life- 
time, that  they  depended  not  on  books,  but  on  personal 
acquaintance,  for  their  judgment  of  the  man,  and  that 
we  may  do  the  same  on  the  strength  of  their  testi- 
mony, independently  of  written  histories.  The  question 
at  once  arises ,  How  do  we  knoiv  that  Washington's 
contemporaries  were  led  by  their  personal  acquaint- 
ance to  esteem  him  so  highly?  Is  it  not  through 
these  very  histories  which  we  profess  to  regard  as 
unessential  to  our  faith  in  the  man?  If  those  histo- 
ries themselves  are  entirely  invalidated,  then  with  them 
goes  all  valid  reason  for  our  believing  in  Washing- 
ton, or  for  thinking  that  his  contemporaries  believed 
in  him,  as  being  what  he  has  currently  been  reputed 
to  be.  In  short,  tradition,  popular  impressions, 
cannot  be  set  up  as  capable  of  outweighing  a  critical 
demonstration  of  the  incredibility  of  all  the  written 
histories ;  for  the  histories  must  have  reflected  the 
popular  impressions  of  the  times  in  which  they  origin- 
ated; and  if  the  histories  are  false,  the  popular  im- 
pressions must  have  been  false  also. 

The  application  of  this  analogy  is  obvious.  Wash- 
ington and  what  he  did  are,  it  is  true,  of  vastly  more 
account  than  the  narratives  of  him  and  his  doings. 
The  narratives  are  only  means  to  an  end  —  the  end 
being  our  acquaintance  with  the  man  and  with  the 
events  connected  with  him.  So  (only  in  a  much 
higher  degree)  Christ  and  our  relation  to  him  are 
much  more  important  than  the  written  records  of  his 
life.  Yet  it  is  only  through  tradition,  whether  written 
or  oral,  that  we  know  of  him.  And  if  these  disagree 
with  each  other,  the  written  is  to  be  preferred.  If 
they  agree,  and  the  written  is  proved  to  be  false,  then 


23  CHBIST  AND  CEITICISM. 

we  simply  know  nothing  about  him.  In  short,  faith 
in  the  man  and  faith  in  the  history  of  the  man  go  to- 
gether and  cannot  he  disjoined.  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  said  of  criticism,  that,  inasmuch  as  it  is  concerned 
only  with  the  origin  and  composition  of  the  early 
books,  it  can  in  no  way  affect  the  Christian  faith.  In 
so  far  as  it  invalidates  the  New  Testament,  it  invali- 
dates Christian  faith ;  for  that  faith  is  necessarily 
bound  together  with  the  earliest  records  of  Christ  and 
his  life.  Accordingly  it  is  not  strange  that  Christians 
should  look  on  with  some  concern,  when  critics  threaten 
to  undermine  the  authenticity  of  the  Christian  records. 
True ,  no  one  should  be  afraid  of  facts  ;  and  if  the 
facts  are  contrary  to  what  has  been  supposed,  we 
should  be  ready  to  abandon  our  faith;  but  it  cannot 
reasonably  be  contended  that  we  may  properly  ad- 
here to  our  faith  in  spite  of  a  proof  that  we  have 
been  entirely  mistaken  as  to  the  object  of  it. 

Faith,  therefore,  is  by  no  means  independent  of 
criticism.  If  critics  overthrow  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  New  Testament,  they  overthrow  Christianity,  un- 
less men  persist  in  believing  what  there  is  no  ground 
for  believing.  But  a  Christian  is  one  who  is  firmly 
assured  of  the  truth  of  what  he  believes  respecting 
Jesus  Christ  and  Christian  doctrine.  Can,  then,  a 
Christian  critic  be  conceived  as  holding  that  there  is 
no  historical  foundation  for  Christianity  ?  And  if  not, 
then  it  is  pertinent  to  consider  the  more  general 
question.  How  far  and  in  what  sense  does  Christian 
faith  limit  or  determine  the  course  of  criticism  as  it 
relates  to  the  New  Testament  books? 

Sometimes   the    opinion    is    expressed  that    in    a 
critical  examination   of  the  Bible  one   should  divest 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  29 

himself  of  all  prepossessions  and  treat  the  Bible  just 
as  he  would  any  other  book.  Can  a  Christian  critic 
do  this?  Ought  he  to  do  it?  On  the  contrary,  it 
must  be  insisted  that  a  Christian ,  just  because  he  is 
a  Christian,  cannot  but  have  a  prepossession;  he  ought 
to  have  a  prepossession  in  favor  of  the  peculiar  value 
of  the  Scriptures.  If  he  has  not  such  a  prepossession, 
he  is  not  in  a  genuine  sense  a  Christian  at  all.  As 
a  Christian,  he  must  have  an  implicit  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  His  faith  in  Christ  comes  through  the  New 
Testament,  or  through  those  whose  faith  directly  or 
indirectly  rests  on  the  statements  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  A  peculiar  faith  in  the  credibility  of  the 
New  Testament  is  presupposed  in  Christian  faith  it- 
self. As  already  observed,  those  Scriptures  cannot  be 
discredited  without  destroying  the  foundations  of 
Christianity.  Consequently  a  Christian  must  come  to 
the  study  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  conviction 
that  it  gives  a  correct  account  of  Christ  and  Christian 
truth.  But  how  far  shall  this  presumption  be  car- 
ried? How  far  does  faith  in  Christ  rightly  determine 
one's  critical  judgment  of  the  New  Testament?  Let 
us  go  more  into  particulars. 

1.  Christian  faith  must  involve  faith  in  the  general 
truthfulness  of  the  New  Testament  portraiture  of 
Christ  and  of  his  teachings.  I  say,  in  the  general 
truthfulness  of  the  New  Testament.  Belief  in  Christ 
as  the  Light  of  the  world  and  the  Saviour  of  men 
does  not  necessarily  imply  an  acceptance  of  any  par- 
ticular theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  or  Epistles. 
It  does  not  require  that  one  believe  in  the  peculiar 
inspiration  or  the  strict  inerrancy  of  the  sacred  books. 
However  forcible  the  arguments  may  be  for  believing 


30  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

in  their  inspiration  and  inerrancy,  such  a  belief  is  not 
essential  to  a  genuine  faith  in  Christ.  As  one  can 
have  a  firm  faith  in  what  historians  relate  concerning 
the  persons  and  events  of  English  history  without 
assuming  that  the  histories  are  free  from  all  error, 
so  with  regard  to  the  New  Testament.  Provided  that 
in  its  main  and  essential  features,  in  its  principal  and 
prominent  declarations,  in  its  natural  implications,  in 
the  general  impression  which  it  leaves,  it  is  accepted 
as  trustworthy,  there  is  involved  no  rejection  of  Christ 
as  Redeemer  or  as  Teacher  in  questioning  the  accu- 
racy of  certain  minor  details,  or  doubting  whether 
the  writers  had  any  peculiar  supernatural  guidance 
in  writing  the  books.  This  could  be  made  essential 
to  Christian  faith  only  in  case  Christ  himself  had  un- 
mistakably propounded  such  a  doctrine  concerning 
the  composition  and  infallibility  of  the  New  Testament. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  why  cannot  one  go  so  far 
as  to  question  the  accuracy  of  a  considerable  part  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  yet  believe  in  Jesus  as  a 
pre-eminently  good  man,  or  even  as  a  divinely  com- 
missioned prophet?  May  not  one  even  reject  all  the 
leading  doctrines  of  ecclesiastical  Christology,  and 
yet  derive  from  the  New  Testament  such  a  knowledge 
of  Christ  and  such  a  reverence  for  him  that  he  may 
be  called  a  true  Christian? 

Far  be  it  from  any  one  to  undertake  to  lay  down 
a  criterion  which  will  suffice  to  enable  us,  in  every 
individual  case,  to  pronounce  a  personal  judgment 
as  to  one's  Christian  character.  A  man,  as  is  often 
said,  may  well  be  better  than  his  creed.  There  is 
hardly  any  limit  to  the  inconsistencies  and  self-con- 
tradictions into  which   the   human  mind  may  be   led. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  3^^ 

But  erratic  and  exceptional  cases  do  not  warrant  us 
in  modifying  the  general  rule,  that  true  faith  in  Christ 
implies  and  necessitates  faith  in  the  general  authen- 
ticity of  the  New  Testament  writings.  As  has  heen 
already  seen,  a  sweeping  denial  of  this  authenticity 
would  be  inconsistent  with  faith  in  Christ.  We  know 
nothing  about  him,  unless  the  New  Testament  gives 
us  a  correct  account  of  him.  The  same  early  Christ- 
ians who  preached  Christ,  and  founded  the  Church 
on  faith  in  Christ,  have  handed  down  also  the  New 
Testament  with  their  endorsement  of  it  as  an  authentic 
written  exposition  of  the  facts  and  truths  which  they 
themselves  believed  in.  If  we  reject  the  New^  Testa- 
ment description  of  Christ,  we  are  left  practically 
without  any  knowledge  of  him,  so  that  it  v/ould  be 
absurd  any  longer  to  profess  to  be  Christians  at  all. 
So  much  is  clear. 

But  the  question  still  remains :  If  it  is  conceded 
that  a  man  may  be  a  true  Christian,  although  he  has 
doubts  about  the  thorough  inerrancy  of  the  New 
Testament;  if,  therefore,  one  may  question  or  reject 
so7ne  things  there  found,  by  what  right  can  it  be  said 
that  he  may  not  reject  many  things,  and  yet  not  for- 
feit his  right  to  rank  as  a  true  Christian? 

Now  without  attempting  to  draw  an  unmistakable 
boundary  line  beyond  which  one's  critical  doubt  can- 
not go  without  involving  a  denial  of  the  Christian 
faith,  some  general  principles  may  be  laid  down 
the  particular  application  of  which  must  be  largely 
left  to  one's  Christian  intelligence,  honesty,  and  com- 
mon sense. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
Christian  faith  is   pre-eminently  a  faith  that  belongs 


32  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

to  a  community.  It  springs  from,  and  it  creates,  as- 
sociation. It  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  private  judgment. 
Indeed,  no  form  of  belief  —  not  even  scientific  opinions  — 
can  be  said  to  be  purely  individual.  But  Christianity, 
more  than  secular  science,  implies  and  requires  a 
common  faith  as  the  basis  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
w^hich  it  was  Christ's  aim  to  establish  on  earth.  The 
faith  is,  therefore,  also  a  communicated  faith.  It  is 
handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another.  It  is 
implanted  in  one  individual  through  the  instruction 
and  stimulus  of  another.  It  is  the  means  of  uniting 
together  those  who  would  otherwise  have  no  common 
interest  —  those  even  whom  differences  of  race  and 
condition  tend  to  separate.  It  creates  an  organiza- 
tion which  is  continuous  and  aims  to  be  universal. 
In  spite  of  the  divisions  of  the  Christian  Church 
there  has  maintained  itself  from  the  beginning,  so  far 
as  the  person  and  mission  of  Christ  are  concerned,  an 
essential  agreement.  He  has  from  the  first  been  re- 
garded as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  divinely  com- 
missioned to  reveal  the  saving  love  of  the  Father,  as 
a  preacher  of  righteousness,  a  miracle-worker,  sinless, 
but  the  friend  of  sinners,  crucified,  but  raised  from 
the  dead  on  the  third  day,  manifested  to  his  disciples, 
ascended  into  heaven,  where  he  reigns  as  the  Head  of 
the  Church  which  he  founded.  There  is  a  general 
unanimity  in  holding  that  faith  in  him  and  love  to 
him  are  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  securing 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  promotion  of  true 
holiness,  and  that  all  Christians  owe  him  spiritual 
allegiance  as  Lord  and  Master. 

Moreover,  this  substantial  accord  in  regard  to  the 
central  object  of  Christian  faith  has  been  indissolubly 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  33 

connected  with  a  common  consent  to  make  the  New 
Testament  the  standard  of  Christian  truth.  What- 
ever excrescences  may  here  and  there  have  grown 
upon  the  faith  of  Christendom  have  generally  come 
from  mistaken  or  one-sided  exegesis  rather  than  from 
a  rejection  of  any  part  of  the  Biblical  testimony. 

Now  it  does  not  imply  an  adoption  of  the  extreme 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  ecclesiastical  authority, 
when  one  maintains  that  a  radical  departure  from 
what  has  been  the  general  faith  of  Christendom  con- 
cerning Christ  does  presumptively  shut  one  out  from 
the  ranks  of  Christians.  Every  one  must  of  course  be 
at  liberty  to  form  his  own  opinions.  But  if  the  result 
of  one's  studies  and  reflections  is  to  lead  him  to 
reject  what  has  generally  been  held  to  be  vital  to 
the  Christian  faith  —  what  has  constituted  the  ral- 
lying-point,  the  basis  of  union,  in  the  Christian  Church 
—  then  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  either  he  or  any  one 
else  should  be  concerned  to  vindicate  for  him  the 
name  of  Christian.  He  has  a  right  to  regard  his 
view  as  more  correct  than  the  Christian  view;  but  he 
cannot  reasonably  regard  it  as  being  itself  the 
Christian  view. 

In  the  second  place,  as  is  already  implied  in  the 
foregoing,  a  radical  departure  from  the  New  Testament 
representations  of  Christ  and  Christian  doctrine  im- 
plies a  departure  from  Christianity  itself.  It  is  true, 
the  question  may  at  once  be  raised,  what  is  a  radical 
departure  from  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament? 
Every  eccentric  man  who  propounds  some  new  view 
of  Christ  and  rejects  the  ordinary  doctrine  may  insist 
that  precisely  what  he  has  come  to  believe  is  the  vital 
thing  in  Christian  belief,    or   at  least  that  his  diver- 

3 


34 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


gences  from  the  ordinary  notions  relate  to  non-essential 
points.  And  at  any  rate  it  may  seem  to  be  difficult 
to  determine  when  a  dissent  from  the  ordinary  doctrine 
becomes  radical.  But  after  all  there  need  not  be  any 
great  mystification  on  this  point.  Ordinary  common 
sense ,  to  say  nothing  of  the  enlightenment  of  a 
Christian  experience,  is  adequate,  with  regard  to  the 
Bible  as  with  regard  to  any  other  book,  to  perceive 
what  the  prominent  and  essential  doctrines  are  which 
it  presents.  Any  one  can  see  that  it  is  an  unimportant 
thing  whether  the  inscription  over  Jesus'  cross  was 
worded  according  to  one  or  another  of  the  four  ver- 
sions which  the  Gospels  give.  And  it  is  just  as  easy 
to  see  that  the  fact  of  Jesus'  death  is  represented  as 
most  important.  Any  one  can  see  that  it  is  of  small 
account  whether  Jesus  healed  only  one  maniac,  or 
two,  in  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes ;  but  it  is  plain 
that  stress  is  laid  upon  the  healing  power  of  Jesus. 
Both  believers  and  unbelievers  would  generally  agree 
as  to  what  the  conspicuous  features  of  New  Testament 
doctrine  are.  And  there  is  especially  a  very  strong 
presumption  that  what  Christians  in  general  have 
regarded  as  the  vital  points  in  that  doctrine  is  justi- 
fied by  the  book  itself. 

Of  course  it  is  possible  that  a  majority  of  the 
Christian  Church  may  fall  into  error  in  some  points 
of  exegesis,  or  may  attach  disproportionate  impor- 
tance to  some  doctrines ,  to  the  comparative  neglect 
of  others.  But  it  is  next  to  inconceivable  that,  so 
far  as  the  general  grand  features  of  the  person  and 
doctrine  of  Christ  are  concerned,  the  Church  can  have 
been  materially  wrong  in  what  it  has  found  the  New 
Testament  to  teach.     Whether,  therefore,  the  radical 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         35 

dissent  from  the  current  views  comes  from  a  peculiar 
exegesis,  or  from  a  wholesale  rejection  of  such  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  as  disagree  with  the  view 
which  he  advocates  —  in  either  case  the  critic  who 
thus  sets  himself  against  what  has  always  appeared 
to  be  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Christian  Scriptures 
cannot,  with  any  show  of  reason,  claim  that  his  view 
is  the  Christian  view,  and  the  other  not. 

Where  the  dissent  from  the  ordinary  conception 
of  the  truth  touches  only  one  or  a  few  points  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  those  not  such  as  have  been 
generally  esteemed  the  most  important,  the  case  is 
different.  Undoubtedly  many  a  man  may  question 
much  of  what  the  great  majority  of  Christians  have 
held  to  be  the  j)lain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  yet  may  be  a  devout  Christian,  not  able  to  see 
the  truth  as  others  see  it,  yet  honestly  trying  to 
elucidate  what  the  Scriptures  set  forth  concerning  the 
person  and  work  of  Christ.  Such  speculations  and 
interpretations ,  even  though  one-sided  and  faulty, 
may  yet  suggest  defects  in  the  ordinary  doctrine,  and 
lead  ultimately  to  a  more  comprehensive  and  correct 
apprehension  of  Scriptural  doctrine  on  the  part  of 
the  Church  in  general.  A  variety  in  doctrinal  belief, 
on  the  part  of  those  who  agree  in  their  devotion  to 
the  same  Saviour  and  in  their  acceptance  of  the 
same  Scriptures ,  is  to  be  expected  wherever  thought 
is  free.  Mutual  charity  is  here  dictated  by  Christian- 
ity itself.  More  harm  than  good  comes  from  charges 
of  heresy  hurled  against  those  who,  while  they  wish 
to  remain  loyal  to  Christ,  are  yet  unable  to  see  him 
as   others    see   him ,    or   to    understand    the   Biblical 

3* 


3Q  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

doctrine   in   the  usual   way.      Leniency   of  judgment 
should  be  exercised  to  the  utmost. 

But  when  the  dissent  from  current  views  not  only 
concerns  what  is  generally  held  to  he  truths  of  cen- 
tral importance,  but  is  connected  with  an  arbitrary 
rejection  of  such  Scriptural  testimony  as  conflicts  with 
the  doctrine  propounded,  the  dissenter  cannot  rea- 
sonably expect  his  view  to  be  accepted  as  sound 
Christian  doctrine.  There  certainly  is  a  point  at 
which  the  rupture  with  the  prevailing  belief  becomes 
radical  and  should  be  regarded  by  the  critic  himself 
as  vacating  his  title  to  the  name  of  Christian,  even 
though  no  one  should  accuse  him  of  heresy.  Just 
where  this  point  is,  it  would  be  presumptuous  to  try 
to  set  forth  in  such  specific  terms  that  it  can  infallibly 
be  determined  when  in  every  individual  case  the  line 
has  been  overstepped.  But  it  may  serve  to  give  greater 
precision  to  the  general  principle  which  we  have  laid 
down,  if  we  add  a  second  proposition,  viz.,  that  — 

2.  In  the  elucidation  of  the  New  Testament  doc- 
trine of  Christ  it  is  unwarrantable  to  draw  one's  in- 
formation wholly  or  preponderantly  from  a  particular 
part  of  the  New  Testament,  to  the  exclusion  or  neglect 
of  other  parts.  There  are  those,  for  example,  who 
in  their  Christological  studies  confine  themselves 
mostly  or  entirely  to  the  Gospels,  on  the  ground 
that,  in  seeking  to  learn  what  Jesus  was  and  what 
he  taught,  we  are  on  firm  ground  only  when  we  are 
attending  to  his  own  words  and  deeds.  Consequently 
the  Epistles  and  other  books  are  treated  as  at  least 
secondary,  or  even  as  quite  untrustworthy,  sources  of 
information.  This  is  not  an  infrequent  method  of 
procedure.    The  Gospels  are  used  as  the  only  authen- 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         37 

tic  source.  The  Epistles  are  treated  as  if  they  were 
only  the  lucubrations  of  a  later  time,  at  which  the 
sober  descriptions  of  the  Gospels  were  succeeded  by 
exaggerations  and  theosophic  speculations,  and  Jesus, 
instead  of  being  regarded  as  the  simple,  godly  teacher 
such  as  the  Evangelists  portray  him,  was  apotheosized 
and  invested  with  attributes  and  functions  of  which 
the  more  primitive  record  knows  nothing. 

There  is  something  plausible  at  first  blush  in  such 
a  view.  It  sounds  scientific  and  reasonable  to  say 
that  testimony  at  first  hand  is  more  to  be  trusted 
than  testimony  at  second  or  third  hand  —  that  a  man's 
own  representations  of  himself  should  be  accepted 
rather  than  other  men's  representations  of  him.  And 
undoubtedly  the  Gospels  have  had,  and  always  will 
have,  a  unique  value  and  charm,  inasmuch  as  they 
report  Jesus'  language,  describe  his  conduct,  and  give 
us  a  portrait  of  him  in  his  intercourse  with  men.  In 
an  important  sense  the  Gospels  must  always  furnish 
the  basis  of  every  attempt  to  set  ibrth  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  But  there  is  no 
warrant  for  making  them  the  exclusive  source  of  in- 
formation. 

The  one-sidedness  of  this  method  becomes  ap- 
parent, when  we  observe  that  the  Gospels  are  not 
the  earliest  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the 
other  books,  as  well  as  the  Gospels,  present  to  us  the 
primitive  apostolic  conception  of  Christ.  Why  should 
Mark's  or  Luke's  portraiture  be  preferred  to  Paul's? 
No  one  of  the  three,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  an  im- 
mediate disciple  of  Jesus.  Luke  tells  us  that  he 
took  pains  to  gather  accurate  information  about  his 
doings  and   sayings.     Paul   tells   us  (Gal.  i.  12)   that 


38  CHKIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

he  received  a  revelation  directly  from  Christ  himself, 
and  that  soon  after  his  conversion  he  had  a  con- 
ference for  a  fortnight  with  Peter  (i.  18) ,  and  still 
later  with  the  other  apostles  (ii.  1 — 10),  Wherein  had 
Luke  any  advantage  over  Paul  in  the  matter  of 
learning  the  truth  ahout  Jesus'  life  and  character? 
On  the  contrary,  the  early  tradition  is  that  Luke 
wrote  his  Gospel  under  Paul's  superintendence.  Paul, 
moreover,  wrote  some  of  liis  Epistles  hefore  any  of 
our  Gospels  were  written  —  all  of  them  probably, 
before  the  Gospels  assumed  their  present  form.  On 
every  account,  therefore,  his  representations  of  Christ 
and  Christian  truth  would  seem  to  be  more  trust- 
worthy, if  we  are  to  make  any  distinction  at  all,  than 
those  of  Mark  or  Luke. 

But  what  of  Matthew  and  John  ?  Since  they  were 
apostles,  are  not  their  Gospels  to  be  preferred  to  the 
other  Gospels  and  to  all  the  other  New  Testament 
books  as  source  of  information  concerning  Christ? 
So  it  might  seem.  Yet,  curiously  enough,  those  who 
depreciate  the  testimony  of  Paul  are  just  the  ones 
who  are  apt  not  to  attach  especial  importance  to  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  John.  The  First  Gospel  is 
thought  to  be  only  in  part,  if  at  all,  the  work  of  Matthew, 
and  the  Fourth  is  pronounced  to  be  not  John's  at  all, 
but  a  very  late  production  presenting  a  mystic  and 
altogether  unreliable  account  of  Jesus^  words  and 
acts.  Mark  is  preferred  to  Matthew,  and  Luke  to 
John.  But  if  so.  then  one  might  suppose  that  Paul 
as  a  witness  would  be  regarded  as  pre-eminently  trust- 
worthy. No  book  of  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as 
genuineness  is  concerned .  is  less  disputed  than 
his    principal    Epistles.     None     were     written     ear^ 


CHKISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         39 

lier.  According  to  Paul's  own  statement  the  leading 
apostles  recognized  him  as  an  apostle  worthy  to 
preach  the  same  gospel  which  had  heen  committed  to 
them.  They  must  have  admitted  the  justness  of  his 
claim  that  he  had  had  a  special  vision  of  Christ  and 
had  received  from  him  direct  revelations.  What, 
then,  according  to  all  the  evidence  before  us,  can  be 
more  primitive  and  trustworthy,  as  a  delineation  of  the 
character  and  work  of  Christ,  than  the  Epistles  of  Paul? 

Those  who  assume  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  might  give  the  preference  to  this,  as  being 
the  work  of  an  immediate  and  favorite  disciple  of  the 
Master.  External  evidence  of  its  genuineness  is  in- 
deed practically  as  decisive  as  for  that  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  And  though  the  portraiture  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospel  is  markedly  different  in  phraseology  and 
mode  of  conception  from  that  of  Paul,  yet  there  is 
essential  harmony.  If  there  is  any  doctrinal  differ- 
ence, John  goes  beyond  Paul  in  the  exaltation  of 
the  Saviour,  reaching  the  point  of  ascribing  to  him 
strict  divinity,  whereas  Paul,  though  coming  near  this 
conception,  is  less  explicit  and  pronounced  in  his  ut- 
terances. So  then,  assuming  the  genuineness  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  we  have  in  it  a  biography  of  Christ 
written  by  his  favorite  disciple,  evidently  the  work 
of  one  man,  and  no  compilation,  and  therefore 
worthy  of  peculiar  confidence  as  a  portraiture  of  the 
Redeemer  and  his  work.  Why  should  the  Synoptists 
be  preferred  to  this,  when  the  question  of  their  ori- 
gin is  still  so  much  a  matter  of  dispute? 

But  we  have  still  more  apostolic  testimony.  The 
first  Epistle  of  Peter  professes  to  come  from  another 
of  the   "pillar"   apostles.     And  its   representation  of 


40  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

Christ  and  his  work,  though  having  an  individuality 
of  its  own,  is  so  manifestly  in  accord  with  that  of 
Paul's  that  many  critics  have  heen  inclined  to  as- 
cribe it  to  some  disciple  of  Paul.  But  here  again 
they  have  to  put  mere  conjecture  against  an  un- 
broken line  of  ancient  attestation.  We  have,  then,  a 
Gospel  and  an  Epistle  of  John  (to  say  nothing  of  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  shorter  Epistles);  we  have  one, 
if  not  two,  Epistles  from  Peter;  and  all  these  writ- 
ings from  the  most  conspicuous  of  the  original  apos- 
tles, though  unlike  in  style  to  one  another  and  to  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  yet  agree  essentially  with  them  in 
the  exposition  which  they  give  of  the  character  of 
Christ  and  his  relation  to  the  Christian  Church. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  difficult  to  conceive 
of  anything  more  uncritical  and  unreasonable  than  to 
assume  (i)  that  only  the  Gospels  can  be  relied  on  as 
giving  an  authentic  account  of  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Jesus ,  and  then  (2)  to  exclude  one  of  the  four 
Gospels  from  the  list  of  authentic  accounts  because 
it  has  a  different  cast  from  the  other  three,  although 
it  is  equally  well  attested,  and  finally  (3)  to  expunge 
as  later  additions  whatever  even  in  the  JSynoptists 
more  or  less  accords  with  the  Pauline  or  Johannean 
writings  in  its  characterization  of  Jesus.  It  is  only 
an  extreme  form  of  this  procedure,  when  everything 
savoring  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Gospels  is  dis- 
credited, and  the  critic  simply  accepts  as  authentic 
whatever  he  chooses,  following  a  purely  subjective 
standard. 

If  there  were  any  insuperable  contradiction  be- 
tween the  Synoptists  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Jo- 
hannean,  Pauline,   and  Petrine   books   on   the  other, 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


41 


SO  that  it  were  necessary  to  make  a  distinct  choice 
between  them,  the  case  would  be  different;  though 
even  then  it  would  be  hard  to  see  on  what  ground 
the  Synoptists  should  be  assumed  to  be  unquestionably 
more  authentic  than  the  other  writers.  But  such  a 
contradiction  does  not  exist.  Neither  ordinary  nor 
scholarly  Christians  have  found  any  great  difficulty 
in  accepting  all  of  these  writings  as  authentic  sources 
of  instruction  concerning  Christ  and  Christian  truth. 
They  have  found  in  them  different,  but  not  discord- 
ant, portraits  of  the  one  Redeemer  in  whom  they 
believe.  The  more  various  the  portraitures  the  better, 
so  long  as  the  variety  furnishes,  not  confusion,  but 
completeness. 

The  case,  then,  stands  thus:  There  are  no  critical 
reasons  for  making  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  or  an  ex- 
purgated form  of  them,  the  sole  authentic  documents 
from  which  to  derive  our  knowledge  of  what  Christ 
and  pure  Christianity  are.  It  would  be  quite  as  rea- 
sonable .  to  say  the  least,  to  select  John  or  Paul  as 
the  authoritative  source,  and  look  on  the  others  as 
only  subsidiary,  or  even  as  apocryphal.  And  if  we 
consider  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian 
faith,  there  is  still  less  warrant  for  confining  our- 
selves to  one  group  of  witnesses,  to  the  exclusion  of 
others  equally  competent  and  equally  trustworthy. 
From  the  beginning  Christendom  has  regarded  these 
various  delineations  of  Christian  truth  as  authentic. 
As  a  whole,  these  New  Testament  writings  have  been 
made  the  standard  of  right  belief  and  the  basis  of 
Christian  teaching.  The  same  continuous  tradition 
which  has  handed  down  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour 
of  men  has  handed  down  all   these  writings  as  vera- 


42  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

cious  and  authoritative  expositions  of  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints. 

Here,  however,  it  may  be  said:  True,  the  faith 
of  Christendom  has  generally  been  that  all  these  New 
Testament  books  are  authentic;  but  the  question  now 
is,  whether  faith  in  Christ  requires  one  to  esteem  all 
these  books  equally.  May  not  one  be  a  genuine 
Christian,  and  yet  make  such  discriminations  as  those 
above  spoken  of?  If,  for  example,  one  accepts  only 
Mark's  Gospel  as  an  authentic  history  of  Christ,  and 
regards  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  as  of  in- 
ferior value^  or  even  as  largely  tainted  with  supersti- 
tious and  fanciful  matter ,  may  he  not  still  be  a  sin- 
cere believer  in  the  Christ  whom  he  finds  in  Mark's 
Gospel? 

No  doubt,  genuine  Christian  faith  may  co-exist 
with  very  imperfect  and  even  erroneous  conceptions 
of  the  nature  and  offices  of  Christ.  Faith  is  not  a 
mere  intellectual  conception,  but  an  act  of  personal 
trust.  Such  a  trust  may  be  exercised  while  yet  there 
is  much  to  learn  concerning  the  one  trusted  in.  The 
best  and  wisest  of  Christians  are  in  this  sense  learn- 
ers. Not  until  we  attain  to  the  heavenly  state  can 
we  hope  to  know  as  we  are  known.  But  this  igno- 
rance is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  of  him  who, 
not  from  want  of  cajDacity  or  opportunity,  but  from 
a  wilful  refusal  to  consider  all  the  sources  of  illumi- 
nation, fixes  himself  in  a  one-sided  and  erroneous 
conception  of  Christ.  The  critic  who  selects  certain 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  as  containing  the 
sole  authentic  description  of  Jesus  Christ  thereby 
proclaims  not  how  little,  but  how  much,  he  knows 
about  him.     He    assumes    to    know    so   much   more 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         ^3 

about  him  than  Christendom  in  general  does,  that  he 
is  able  to  decide  what  parts  of  the  New  Testament 
give  us  an  incorrect  and  untrustworthy  account  of 
him.  He  can  have  no  adequate  reason  for  rejecting 
the  testimony  of  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, unless  it  is  because  there  is  an  irreconcilable 
difference  between  this  testimony  and  that  which  he 
accepts.  In  short,  he  has  an  a  priori  conception  of 
what  Christ  and  the  primitive  Christianity  must  have 
been,  and  adjusts  the  documentary  evidence  to  this 
conception.  That  is,  he  sets  himself  in  opposition  to 
that  Christ  whom  Christendom  has  always  believed 
in,  and  whom  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole  bears 
witness  to.  and  preaches  another  Christ  and  another 
Gospel. 

It  is  only  by  a  stretch  of  charity  or  of  fancy  that 
such  a  procedure  can  be  called  criticism  at  all.  The 
animating  and  determining  impulse  in  it  is  sl  clog  mafic 
one.  But  it  calls  itself  criticism,  assumes  some  of 
the  forms  and  appearances  of  a  critical  process,  and 
may  therefore ,  at  least  in  a  loose  sense ,  be  called 
such.  But  whatever  it  may  be,  it  is  essentially  anti- 
Christian.  It  has,  to  be  sure,  a  variety  of  grades, 
some  of  which  may  involve  a  comparatively  slight 
departure  from  the  ordinary  Christian  view  ;  but  the 
principle  of  the  criticism  —  that  of  letting  a  pre- 
conceived notion  of  what  Christ  must  have  been  de- 
termine what  parts  of  the  New  Testament  represen- 
tation of  him  shall  be  conceded  to  be  genuine  and 
authentic  —  this  is  not  Christian.  Whether  it  leads 
more,  or  less,  far  astray,  the  method  of  it  is  perverse. 
The  result  of  it,  when  consistently  carried  out,  is  to 
make    every    man    his    own   judge    as   to    what    the 


44  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

Scriptural  testimony  concerning  Christian  truth  ought 
to  be^  rather  than  the  docile  recipient  of  the  truth  as  it  has 
been  communicated  to  us  by  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

What  has  just  been  said  is  of  course  not  appli- 
cable to  the  critical  doubts  which,  with  greater  or 
less  plausibility,  have  been  cherished  concerning  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  New  Testament.  Whether  the 
deuterocanonical  books  are  genuine;  whether  John 
vii.  53 — viii.  11  or  Mark  xvi.  9 — 20  ought  to  be  re- 
ceived as  parts  of  canonical  Scripture  ;  whether  Rom, 
XV.  and  xvi.  are  genuinely  Pauline;  whether  Matthew's 
account  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  can  be 
harmonized  with  Luke's;  these  and  such  like  ques- 
tions may  be  raised  and  answered  affirmatively  or 
negatively,  without  derogating  from  the  sincere 
Christian  faith  of  those  who  discuss  them^  so  long  as 
they  confine  themselves  to  arguments  of  a  truly  crit- 
ical nature  and  admit  that  the  New  Testament  in 
its  entirety  must  be  accepted  as  giving  us  an  author- 
itative exposition  of  the  nature,  character,  and  doc- 
trines of  Christ.  When  MS.  authority,  or  historical 
testimony,  or  even  internal  evidence  of  a  peculiarly 
cogent  kind,  can  be  adduced  against  the  genuineness 
or  authenticity  of  any  book,  or  section  of  a  book, 
the  criticism  should  at  least  be  carefully  considered, 
even  if  it  be  not  convincing. 

In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  most  serious  and 
daring  assaults  on  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Testament 
books  have  been  inspired  by  a  different  spirit.  The 
critics  have  not  undertaken  to  show  that  those  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  which  are  by  strictly  critical 
methods  proved  to  be  peculiarly  trustworthy  represent 
Christ  and  Christian   truth  to   have  been  other  than 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         45 

what  the  Church  has  taught;  on  the  contrary,  they 
pronounce  certain  parts  of  the  New  Testament  un- 
trustworthy just  because  they  agree  tvith  the  ecclesiastical 
doctrine.  It  is  assumed,  for  example,  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  been  a  theanthropic  being,  miracu- 
lously born,  miraculously  working,  miraculously  risen 
from  the  dead ;  that  he  cannot  be  in  any  pre- 
eminent sense  a  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  or 
the  Judge  of  the  world;  and  then,  whatever  in  the 
New  Testament  countenances  such  a  view  of  his  na- 
ture and  offices  is  for  that  reason  declared  to  be 
legendary  or  visionary,  and  not  historical.  This  leads 
to  another  proposition  respecting  the  relation  of 
-Christian  faith  to  criticism,  viz.  — 

3.  Faith  in  Christ  is  inconsistent  with  a  general 
doubt  or  denial  of  the  supernatural  in  the  endow- 
ment and  the  work  of  Christ.  Men  may  have  differ- 
ent modes  of  explaining  the  narratives  of  the  mira- 
culous ;  in  some  cases  they  may  disagree  on  the  point 
whether  a  particular  occurrence  was  miraculous  or 
not.  They  may  go  too  far  in  trying  to  tone  down 
the  appearance  of  a  supernatural  intervention.  But 
still  so  long  as  they  accept  the  general  representations 
of  the  New  Testament  concerning  a  supernatural  re- 
velation, they  cannot  be  called  recreant  to  the 
Christian  faith. 

Undoubtedly  the  main  point  to  be  here  insisted 
on  is  that  Christ  himself  was,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  an  altogether  unique  being  and  endowed 
with  superhuman  powers.  On  this  point  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  speak  with  one  voice ;  and 
Christendom  has  always  accepted  the  description  as 
true.    It  is  not  merely  the  stories  of  miraculous  deeds 


^g  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

wrought  by  Christ  that  must  be  taken  into  account, 
but  his  general  representations  of  himself,  his  assump- 
tion of  extraordinary  authority  and  of  supernatural 
power.  These  claims  run  all  through  the  Gospels 
and  are  reflected  and  acknowledged  in  the  Epistles. 
A  supernatural  element  is  intertwined  with  the  whole 
New  Testament  sketch  of  Christ's  life  and  character. 
Nothing  but  a  purely  arbitrary  criticism  can  eliminate  it. 
It  may  be  argued,  however,  that  in  the  case  of 
other  histories  the  presence  of  stories  of  supernatural 
occurrences  is  regarded  as  of  itself  a  presumptive 
evidence  of  untrustworthiness,  and  that  therefore  it  is 
not  unreasonable  to  let  the  same  presumption  weigh 
against  the  stories  of  miracles  in  the  New  Testament. 
But  be  it  so  that,  as  a  general  rule,  we  discredit  the 
supernatural;  Christendom  has  not  discredited  it  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  rather  found  it  to  be  an 
essential  and  irremovable  part  of  the  book.  If  the 
supernatural  in  it  is  to  be  discarded,  then  the  whole 
may  as  well  be  discarded;  for  no  one  can  disentangle 
the  supernatural  from  the  natural  and  determine  what 
shall  be  called  historical.  The  personality  of  Christ 
especially  would  become  an  insoluble  enigma ,  if  the 
New  Testament  portraiture  of  him  is  to  be  recon- 
structed according  to  the  critical  canon  that  every- 
thing must  be  adjusted  to  the  theory  that  the  super- 
natural is  never  to  be  admitted.  For  the  super- 
natural is  in  the  person,  and  not  merely  in  his  doings.. 
If  the  Christian  conception  of  Christ  is  to  be  recon- 
structed in  accordance  with  a  purely  naturalistic 
scheme,  then  not  only  the  miracles,  but  all  the  claims 
of  superhuman  dignity  and  authority  which  Jesus 
made,  must  be  set   aside.     But  this  would  be  practi- 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         47 

cally  setting  aside  the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  would  be  an  attempt  to  discover  and  por- 
tray a  Christ  of  whom  we  know  nothing.  It  is  easy 
to  affirm  that  Jesus  must  have  been  a  mere  man, 
however  gifted  more  than  most  others,  and  that  he 
could  not  have  laid  claim  to  such  powers  and  prerog- 
atives as  have  been  accorded  to  him.  But  the  stub- 
born fact  remains  that  the  earliest  known  account  of 
him  is  saturated  with  just  the  opposite  conception 
of  him ,  and  that  this  conception  has  from  the  first 
been  handed  down  as  the  true  one.  This  is  the 
Christian  view;  it  must  always  remain  the  Christian 
view;  and  any  other  rests  on  an  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament  which  is  neither  Christian  nor 
critical. 

But,  it  is  often  urged,  the  question  of  miraculous 
occurences  is  a  historical  question ,  and  must  there- 
fore be  settled  by  historico-critical  investigation,  not 
by  religious  faith.  What  shall  be  said  to  this  ?  No 
doubt,  if  miracles  ever  occurred,  they  were  historical 
events,  and  therefore  the  question  of  miracles  is  a 
historical  one.  Yes  ;  and  equally  true  is  it  that  if  Jesus 
Christ  ever  lived  on  earth,  he  was  a  historic  personage, 
and  his  life  and  doings  form  a  part  of  human  history.  It 
is  consequently  a  historical  question,  whether  Jesus  ever 
existed,  and  whether  he  ever  did  and  said  any  of  the 
things  that  are  told  about  him.  But  if  the  question 
is  asked,  whether  it  is  consistent  with  faith  in  Christ 
to  treat  the  fact  of  his  existence  as  doubtful,  the 
answer  can  only  be.  No ;  of  course  the  two  things  are 
not  consistent  with  one  another.  If  one  chooses  to 
treat  the  existence  and  alleged  life  of  Christ  as  of 
questionable    historic   truthfulness ,   he   is    at  liberty 


48  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

to  do  SO,  hut  not  as  a  Christian',  for  to  a  Christian 
Christ  and  his  work  are  not  matters  of  doubt,  but  of 
faith.  In  so  far  as  the  historic  question  of  Christ's 
existence  and  mission  comes  before  the  true  Christian, 
it  is  as  a  question  already  settled.  And  the  case  is 
not  essentially  different,  though  of  course  not  quite 
the  same,  when  we  consider  the  question  of  the  New 
Testament  miracles.  Genuine  faith  in  Christ  cannot 
but  have  a  determining  effect  on  one's  critical  judgment 
concerning  them.  One  who  has  not  that  faith  might 
be  in  a  certain  sense  quite  justifiable,  if  he  regarded 
the  miraculous  element  in  the  New  Testament  as 
something  to  be  disbelieved.  To  be  sure,  even  such 
a  man ,  if  candid ,  would  find  difficulties  created  by 
rejecting;  as  well  as  by  accepting,  the  authenticity  of 
the  book.  But  a  Christian  can  take  such  a  view  only 
by  abandoning  what  has  been  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  era  regarded  as  fundamental.  The 
Christ  of  Christendom  —  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King  of  the  new  dispensation,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Effulgence  of  the  Father's  glory  ^  the  Head  of  the 
Church  universal  —  this  Christ  would  disappear,  if 
the  incredibility  of  the  supernatural  is  to  be  the  crit- 
ical canon  by  which  the  Christian  Scriptures  are  to 
be  tested.  The  Church  might  well  say,  w^ith  Mary 
Magdelene,  "They  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and 
I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him." 

More  particularly,  it  must  be  said  that  a  Christian 
interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  cannot  fail  to 
find  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  a 
historic  fact.  Not  but  that  subtle  and  ingenious  ef- 
forts may  be  made  to  explain  away  the  obvious  mean- 
ing   of    the    whole    of   the    New  Testament   on    this 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         ^9 

point;  and  not  but  that  such  efforts  may  be  made 
by  men  sincerely  desirous  of  getting  at  the  truth. 
But  the  attempts  contradict  both  the  general  belief 
of  Christendom  and  the  plain  and  unanimous  teach- 
ing of  the  New  Testament  itself. 

This  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  has  from 
the  beginning  been  maintained  in  the  Church  against 
all  forms  of  doubt.  It  is  not  until  very  recently  that 
professed  Christians  have  seriously  endeavored  to  con- 
trovert it.  Their  attempts  have  not  been  successful. 
Still  the  effort  is  continued;  and  when  a  man  of 
Dr.  Martineau's  ability  and  sincerity  makes  the  at- 
tempt, it  might  be  expected  that  in  view  of  the  weak- 
nesses of  previous  attacks  on  the  crowning  miracle 
in  the  life  of  Christ  he  would  do  his  best  to  make  out 
a  somewhat  plausible  case.    But  what  is  his  argument?^ 

The  underlying  thought  of  his  exposition  is  that 
the  faith  in  Christ's  resurrection  properly  meant  only 
the  belief  that  the  crucified  Jesus  still  lives,  not, 
however,  in  the  underworld,  but  ^4n  the  abodes  of 
the  immortals."  The  narratives  of  the  Gospels  are 
summarily  cast  aside  on  account  of  their  alleged  late 
origin  and  mutual  contradictions ;  and  Paul ,  as 
being  the  one  early  witness,  is  called  upon  the  stand 
and  made  to  testify  that  Jesus  was  never  seen  after 
his  death  except  by  an  inward  vision  (Gal.  i.  16). 
The  detailed  statement  of  1  Cor.  xv.  3 — 8  is  inter- 
preted in  the  same  way.  Since  to  the  Galatians 
Paul  said  that  God  had  revealed  Christ  in  him, 
therefore  it  follows,  we  are  told,  that  the  being  seen 
(or  the   appearing)    told  of   in    1.  Cor.  xv.   must  be 

^  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  p.  361  sqq. 

4 


50  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

understood  in  the  same  way  with  reference  to  the  ex- 
perience not  only  of  Paul  himself,  but  also  of  Peter, 
James,  the  twelve,  and  the  five  hundred.  "The  whole 
of  these  facts,"  Paul  "received,  but  from  two  different 
sources  which  he  is  careful  to  distinguish;  the  first 
half,  including  the  resurrection  on  the  third  day,  were 
^accredited  by  the  Scriptures' ;  the  second  half,  con- 
sisting of  the  Christophanies,  were  personal  experien- 
ces related  to  him  by  others  or  felt  in  himself."  If 
this  means  anything ,  it  means  that  Paul  did  not 
hear  of  Christ's  death  or  of  his  resurrection  through 
reports  from  the  apostles  or  other  witnesses,  but  that 
he  learned  about  these  things  solely  from  the  Scrip- 
tures !  It  might  indeed  be  that  Paul  could  have  inferred 
from  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  tvas  going  to  die  and  rise 
again ;  but  how  could  he  learn  that  he  had  died  and  risen? 
If  Paul  had  said  any  such  thing,  we  should  have  some 
reason  to  be  startled ;  but  fortunately  he  said  nothing 
of  the  sort,  but  simply  that  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  of  ivhich  he  had  heard,  were  "according  to 
the  Scriptures."  By  no  stretch  of  respectable  exegesis 
can  it  be  made  to  appear  that,  when  Paul  tells  us 
that  he  has  received  that  Christ  was  raised  according 
to  the  Scriptures,  he  really  means  that  he  has  received 
from  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  has  been  raised. 

One  naturally  wonders  how  so  clear-headed  a 
man  as  Dr.  Martineau  could  be  led  to  so  manifest 
a  distortion  of  the  plain  language  of  the  apostle.  The 
reason  soon  appears.  Having  made  out,  in  this  strange 
way,  that  the  report  about  the  rising  on  "the  third 
day"  did  not  come  from  any  eye-witnesses,  but  was 
a  mere  inference  from  the  Old  Testament,  our  author 
thinks  the  way  clear  to  assert,  with  regard  to  the  re- 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        5;^ 

ported  Christophanies,  that  ^'no  date  is  given  for  any 
of  them;  nor  is  any  locality  assigned;  provided  the 
order  were  not  disturbed ,  there  is  no  one  of  them 
that  might  not  be  on  the  third  day  or  on  the  three 
hundredth ,  —  in  Jerusalem,  —  at  Bethany,  or  on 
the  hills  of  Galilee."  We  now  see  what  the  induce- 
ment was  to  find  in  Paul's  language  an  indication  of 
two  distinct  sources  of  information:  in  this  way  that 
uncomfortable  "third  day"  is  disconnected  from  the 
narrative  received  by  Paul  from  the  immediate  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  and  thus  an  indefinite  space  of  time 
is  gained  during  which  the  so-called  appearances  of 
Christ  might  have  taken  place. 

The  appeal  to  Paul  is  unhappy  in  still  another  re- 
spect. The  narrative  which  he  gives  was  occasioned 
by  the  doubts  which  some  of  the  Corinthians  had  ex- 
pressed concerning  the  resurrection  in  general  (xv. 
12),  and  particularly  concerning  a  bodily  resurrection 
(xv.  35).  It  was  to  meet  these  doubters  that  Paul 
calls  attention  to  the  admitted  fact  of  Christ's  re- 
surrection —  a  fact  which  he  had  always  made  fun- 
damental in  his  preaching.  Now  what  satisfaction 
could  it  have  been  to  those  doubters  to  be  told  that 
Peter  and  James  and  a  number  of  others  had  at  some 
time  become  convinced  that  Christ's  disembodied 
spirit  was  still  existent  in  one  part,  rather  than  in 
another  part,  of  the  invisible  world? 

To  make  all  this  exegesis  the  more  amazing,  our 

author   tells    us  that   the    original   apostles   after  all 

''declared   that  they   had   seen  the   risen  Christ;   and 

had  they   not   been  able  to  do  so,  they  could  hardly 

have   conveyed  to   others  the   profound   assurance  of 

his  heavenly  life  which,  in  their  own  minds,  so  largely 

4* 


52  CHRIST  AND    CRITICISM. 

depended  on  the  impressions  of  their  personal  ex- 
perience." Indeed ;  are  we,  then,  to  understand  that 
they  really  had  seen  the  risen  Christ?  And  if  so,  then 
what  becomes  of  all  this  labored  explaining  away  of 
Paul's  testimony?  If  not,  is  it  meant  that  the  apos- 
tles deliberately  lied ,  in  order  to  convey  to  others 
their  profound  assurance  that  Christ  was  now  in 
heaven?  There  seems  to  be  no  other  supposition  pos- 
sible. But  if  the  falsehood  was  so  necessary  and  so 
successful  in  reference  to  men  in  general,  why  should 
we  not  suppose  that  it  was  told  to  Paul  also?  In 
that  case,  when  he  reports  the  account  of  the  appear- 
ances of  Christ,  he  is  after  all  to  be  taken  literally. 
It  may  be  imagined,  however,  that  Dr.  Martineau 
only  means  that  the  original  apostles,  as  well  as  Paul, 
in  saying  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Christ,  simply 
meant  that  they  had  had  an  inward  vision  of  him  such  as 
Paul  speaks  of  to  the  G-alatians.  But  we  are  forbidden 
to  resort  to  this  explanation  of  the  apparent  charge  ot 
falsehood  ;  for  our  author  has  previously  drawn  out  with 
great  particularity  the  process  of  thought  and  feeling 
by  which  the  apostles ,  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
brought  themselves  to  the  conviction  that  he  was  not 
in  ''the  storehouse  of  souls  in  the  underworld",  but 
in  heaven  with  God  and  the  angels.  After  the  first 
bitter  disappointment,  we  are  told,  they  began  to  per- 
suade themselves  that  ^'the  divinest  vision  of  their 
life"  could  not  have  been  an  illusion.  They  conclu- 
ded that  they  "had  read  the  Prophets  with  eyes  only 
half  open",  and  began  to  find  references  there  to  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  the  Messiah.  They  reasoned 
from  Jesus'  phrase,  '^kingdom  of  heaven",  that  he 
must   have   gone   to  heaven  ^^to  bring  it."     The  ideal 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         53 

jiicture,  we  are  further  told,  ^^had  but  wavering  out- 
lines and  colors  that  changed  with  the  glow  or  chill 
from  the  breath  of  circumstances."  ''Thus  far,  then, 
that  is,  to  the  belief  that  Jesus,  the  crucified,  still 
lives,  and  only  waits  the  Father's  time  to  fulfil  the 
promises,  an  intelligible  process  might  well  bring  the 
disciples;  and  this  is  the  faith  in  his  resurrection/' 
According  to  this,  therefore,  it  was  a  ''process"  of 
thought,  an  inference  gradually  reached ,  that  led  to 
the  belief  that  Jesus  was  still  living,  and  in  the  heaven- 
ly world;  no  startling  vision,  therefore,  —  nothing 
that  could  have  warranted  them  in  saying  that  they 
had  seen  Jesus  risen  from  the  dead.  On  this  theory, 
therefore,  if,  in  order  to  accomplish  their  end,  the 
apostles  did  say  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Christ, 
they  acted  the  part  of  deceivers.  Moreover,  if  any- 
thing can  be  gathered  from  the  New  Testament  about 
this  matter,  it  is  that  the  assurance  of  Christ's  re- 
surrection was  the  starting-point  in  the  apostolic 
preaching.  Not  only  Peter  and  the  eleven,  but  Paul, 
make  it  a  vital  doctrine.  It  was  Christ's  resurrection 
by  which  he  was  "declared  (or  determined)  to  be  the 
Son  of  God"  (Horn,  i.  4).  Unless  Christ  had  risen, 
the  Christians'  faith  was  vain  (1  Cor.  xv.  17).  Every- 
thing goes  to  show  that  the  greatest  stress  was  laid 
on  the  fact  that  the  apostles  had  actually  seen  the 
risen  Christ.  It  is  inconceivable  that  they  could  have 
preached  that  fact  with  such  assurance  and  boldness, 
if  they  had  only  reasoned  themselves  into  the  convic- 
tion that  so  superlatively  pious  a  man  as  Jesus  can- 
not have  gone  down  to  Hades,  but  must  have  been 
distinguished,  as  Enoch  and  Moses  had  been  before 
him,  by  being  received  at  once  into  the  angelic  world. 


54  CHRIST  AXD  CRITICISM. 

How  could  the  preaching  of  this  process  of  reasoning 
have  produced  conviction  in  the  minds  of  enemies 
or  doubters?  ^'"What  is  the  use",  these  might  well 
have  said;  '^of  telling  us  that  you  feel  sure  that  your 
Master  must  have  been  exempted  from  the  ordinary 
lot  of  men?  We  have  no  doubt  that  he  still  exists; 
but  where  is  the  evidence  that  he  is  not  with  the 
other  dead  ?  Have  you  seen  him  up  there  in  the  upper 
heavens?  Or  are  we  expected  to  take  your  guesses 
and  inferences  for  infallible  truth?"  In  short,  the 
preaching  of  this  belief  that  Jesus  had  been  translated 
like  Enoch  and  Moses  could  have  availed  no  more 
than  the  setting  forth  of  the  rare  personal  excellences 
of  Jesus  on  which  the  belief  was  founded. 

And  yet  these  fancies  and  ingenious  speculations, 
spun  out  of  the  brain  of  the  critic,  resting  on  no  ex- 
ternal authority,  but  opposed  to  all  the  external  au- 
thority that  exists,  the  Christian  world  is  asked  to 
take  on  trust  in  place  of  the  positive  and  unanimous 
statements  of  the  New  Testament  writers  and  the 
general  faith  of  Christendom.  Such  criticism,  if  crit- 
icism it  can  be  called,  bids  defiance  not  only  to  all 
the  laws  of  evidence,  but  to  a  belief  of  the  Christian 
Church  which  always  has  been,  and  always  must  be, 
held  to  be  central  and  unconquerable.  What  is  here 
implied  may  be  generalized  and  put  into  the  form  of 
a  fourth  proposition  — 

4.  It  is  inconsistent  with  a  sound  Christian  faith 
to  apply  purely  subjective  canons  of  criticism  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament 
concerning  Christ  and  Christian  truth.  By  this  is 
meant  that  in  a  certain  important  sense  the  individ- 
ual Christian  is  limited  in  his  critical  and  exegetical 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  55 

treatment  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  general  consensus 
of  Christians,  In  a  general  way  this  may  be  said  of 
all  interpretations.  No  one  can  expound  a  book  in- 
dependently of  the  influence  of  other  men.  Language 
itself  is  not  an  individual,  but  a  social,  possession. 
Words,  in  themselves  apparently  mere  meaningless 
sounds,  have  a  meaning,  not  according  as  individuals 
arbitrarily  choose  to  attach  a  meaning  to  them,  but 
according  to  a  common  understanding  as  to  their 
meaning.  In  undertaking  to  define  the  purport  of 
a  word  or  a  phrase  the  interpreter  is  necessarily 
bound  to  understand  the  language,  not  as  he  may 
happen  to  wish  it  to  mean,  but  as  it  actually  does 
mean  to  men  in  general.  He  is  limited  and  deter- 
mined by  the  prevalent  conceptions. 

The  case  is  similar  when  the  meaning  of  a  book 
is  considered.  Though  there  is  here  somewhat  more 
room  for  difference  of  interpretation,  yet  in  general, 
since  usage  has  fixed  the  significance  of  the  several 
words,  the  combination  of  words  into  sentences  and 
of  sentences  into  paragraphs  and  whole  treatises  must 
convey  to  all  who  understand  the  language  essentially 
the  same  meaning.  If  there  are  obscurities,  the  con- 
sensus of  those  supposed  to  be  best  able  to  investi- 
gate them  is  naturally  taken  as  furnishing  the  best  so- 
lution. If  the  book  is  written  in  an  ancient  and  now 
unspoken  language,  the  rule  still  holds,  that  the  in- 
terpretation which  the  experts  generally  adopt  is 
presumably  correct. 

As  to  the  New  Testament  in  particular,  the  same 
principle  holds  good,  with  the  modification,  that  in 
this  case  the  experts  should  be  Christians.  In  the 
reaction  against  the  extreme  position   of  the  Roman 


56  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

Catholic  Church,  which  practically  shut  the  Bible 
away  from  the  common  people,  and  reserved  the  in- 
terpretation of  it  to  a  select  class,  there  is  danger 
of  forgetting  the  truth  which  is  involved  in  the  ground 
assumed  by  that  hierarchy,  viz.,  that  deference  is  due 
to  that  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  which  has 
currently  prevailed  among  enlightened,  pious,  and 
scholarly  Christians.  Protestants  repudiate,  and  in 
most  cases,  it  may  be,  rightly,  certain  Roman  Catholic 
expositions  of  the  Bible  which  seem  to  be  perversions 
of  its  obvious  meaning.  The  right  of  private  inter- 
pretation must  be  strenuously  maintained.  Yet  how 
few,  when  they  try  to  make  a  careful  study  of  a  Bib- 
lical book,  are  willing  to  dispense  with  all  commen- 
taries. It  savors  even  of  spiritual  arrogance  when  a 
man  professes  to  receive  his  exposition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures directly  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  apart  from  all 
human  instruction.  Their  exact  and  full  meaning 
does  not  always  lie  on  the  surface.  Often  nothing 
but  the  lessons  of  Christian  experience  suffice  to  un- 
fold the  deeper  significance  of  a  passage.  But  it  cannot 
be  the  experience  of  one  individual  alone  which  deter- 
mines that  significance.  It  must  be  an  experience  which 
belongs  to  the  more  earnest  Christian  life  in  general. 
Undoubtedly  in  a  certain  sense  new  light  may 
break  out  of  the  Word  of  Grod.  A  better  understand- 
ing of  its  meaning  may  be  attained  than  has  been  the 
case  before.  Progress  in  archaeological,  historical,  and 
linguistic  knowledge  may  make  clear  what  has  hereto- 
fore been  obscure  or  misunderstood.  Or  a  varied  type  of 
Christian  character  may  be  developed  which  brings 
into  greater  prominence  some  previously  overlooked  or 
misconceived  phases  of  Biblical  doctrine.     As  in  the 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  57 

starry  heavens,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  made 
most  certain  by  scientific  research,  there  is  ever  room 
for  new  explorations,  so  in  the  Bible.  But  whatever 
new  truth  concerning  it  may  be  attained  must  be  such 
as  commends  itself  to  the  generality  of  Christians, 
when  once  it  is  set  forth.  If  not,  that  fact  itself  is 
sufficient  to  discredit  the  alleged  discovery.  What 
the  Bible  really  means  it  must  mean  to  all,  not  to 
one  or  a  few  only.  Allegorical  and  far-fetched  inter- 
pretations which  individual  ingenuity  may  propound 
condemn  themselves  by  the  very  fact  that  they  are 
far-fetched  and  do  not  commend  themselves  to  the 
plain  common  sense  of  Christians  in  general.  What 
may  seem  an  absolutely  new  interpretation  may  be 
old  enough ;  but  if  it  is  new,  it  cannot  be  called  true, 
until  it  proves  its  worth  by  being  generally  accepted. 
In  the  long  run  the  ultimate  test  of  a  correct  exegesis 
is  the  consensus  of  the  Christian  world. 

But  with  regard  to  the  greater  part  of  the  New 
Testament  such  a  consensus  exists  already.  In  spite 
of  many  points  on  which  there  is  disagreement  — 
points  of  doctrine,  ethics,  ecclesiastical  polity  —  the 
general  purport  of  the  book  is  one  on  which  Christ- 
endom is  agreed.  And  when  a  man  undertakes  to 
contradict  such  a  general  judgment,  he  is  pre- 
sumptively in  the  wrong.  If,  for  example,  one  endeav- 
ors to  make  out  that  Jesus  claimed  no  peculiar 
authority  and  no  unique  relation  to  the  Father;  or 
that  he  did  not  know  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  only  by  degrees  came 
to  the  suspicion  that  he  might  be  such;  or  that  he 
disclaimed  having  miraculous  power;  or  that  John 
does  not   teach  the  preexistence   of  Christ;   or  that 


58 


CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


Paul  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  vica- 
rious sufferings;  and  especially  if,  in  propounding 
such  views,  a  man  finds  it  necessary  to  pronounce 
certain  passages  spurious  or  unhistorical  because 
they  contradict  the  view  propounded;  —  all  such 
exegesis^  doing  violence  not  only  to  the  natural  mean- 
ing and  to  the  integrity  of  the  text,  but  to  the  gen- 
eral judgment  of  Christendom ,  must  be  pronounced 
opposed  to  the  Christian  faith.  It  is  a  substitution 
of  an  individual  judgment  as  to  what  ought  to 
have  been  for  the  judgment  as  to  what  really  is. 
Whether  it  proceeds  from  a  morbid  desire  to  gain  a 
reputation  for  originality,  or  is  the  sincere  conviction 
of  the  man  who  indulges  in  it,  such  exegesis  cannot 
command  the  general  assent  of  Christians.  It  may 
be  indulged  in  by  good  Christians,  but  it  is  not 
Christian  exegesis.  Men  of  such  erratic  propensities 
are  to  the  Christian  world  what  comets  are  to  the 
solar  system.  They  may  submit  to  the  attraction  of 
the  sun  and  planets;  but  their  orbits  are  anomalous; 
and  in  the  end  they  either  are  overpowered  by  the 
stronger  force  of  the  more  solid  bodies  and  become 
absorbed  in  them,  or  else  they  wander  off  to  other 
systems  and  are  seen  no  more. 

5.  Once  more,  it  is  in  conflict  with  a  normal 
Christian  faith  to  regard  a  large  part  of  the  New 
Testament  as  spurious,  fictitious,  pseudonymous,  or 
partisan.^     But   liere   a  carefiil    distinction   must   be 

'  By  "partisan"  writings  I  mean  what  in  Grerman  are  called 
Tendenzschriften  —  a  phrase  often  either  transferred  into 
English  works  (and  then  needing  a  definition)  or  else  rendered 
"tendency-writings".  In  the  latter  case,  since  the  phrase  conveys 
no  meaning  to  one  unacquainted  with  German ,    "tendency"  is 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         59 

made.  One  cannot  affirm  with  absolute  assurance 
that  our  New  Testament  is  entirely  free  from  elements 
of  this  sort.  We  do  not  have  the  original  manu- 
scripts. We  cannot  assume  an  infallible  inspiration 
on  the  part  of  the  Christians  who  decided  to  admit 
certain  books  and  no  others  into  the  list  of  authorita- 
tive Christian  Scriptures.  We  know  that  diversity  of 
opinion  for  a  long  time  prevailed  respecting  some  of 
those  writings.  Nothing  but  a  preponderance  of 
opinion  finally  led  to  the  retention ,  for  example,  of 
Second  Peter,  and  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas.  It  is  certain  also  that  the  early  Christ- 
ians were  much  given  to  the  composition  of  pseu- 
donymous works,  and  that  many  productions  of  that 
period  are  of  a  mixed  character,  the  original  work 
being  enlarged  or  interpolated  by  later  writers.  How, 
it  may  be  asked,  do  we  know  that  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  may  not  be  largely  works  of  this  sort? 
How  can  we  be  sure  that  no  books  of  a  partisan 
character  gained  admission,  or  that  none  were  smug- 
gled in  under  false  pretenses?  Is  it  not  even  possible 
to  suppose,  with  Professor  Steck,i  ^j^^^  ^^^  the  New 
Testament  books  are  pseudonymous,  spurious,  and 
more  or  less  unauthentic^  and  still  manage  to  select 

sometimes  provided  with  quotation  marks,  or  is  printed  in 
Italics  —  neither  of  which  devices  serves  any  purpose  except 
to  suggest  that  there  is  some  mystery  about  the  word.  The 
term  above  used,  though  not  a  precise  equivalent  of  Tendenz- 
schrift,  is  very  near  being  one,  and  has  the  merit  of  being 
English.  It  means  substantially  what  the  German  word  means 
—  a  work  written  in  a  partisan  spirit  and  distorting,  inventing, 
or  misrepresenting  facts  for  a  partisan  end. 

*  Der  Galaterbrief,  p.  385. 


go  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

and  adopt  from  this  miscellaneous  collection  enough 
of  truth  to  warrant  us  in  calling  ourselves  Christians? 
Now   to   such  questions  a   general  answer  is  that 
we  are  entirely  dependent  on    the  early  church,   not 
only    for    ohe    preservation    of  the    New    Testament 
Scriptures,    but   for   our  historical  information  as  to 
their  authorship.     Apart   from   this  traditional  infor- 
mation  about  the  New  Testament  no  man  would  be 
able  to    determine  anything  concerning  either  its  ori- 
gin or  its   authenticity.     With  regard  to  any  written 
work  credible   contemporaneous  testimony  concerning 
its  authorship  and  composition  is  of  more  worth  than 
a  hundred  critical  dissertations  which  ignore  the  his- 
torical testimony.    Without  such  traditional  informa- 
tion, we  should  not  have  even  the  means  of  detecting 
the  forgeries  or   interpolations  which   critical   exami- 
nation may  seem  to  have  discovered.    Now  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  have  been  delivered  to  us,  we 
may  at  least  say,  with  the  general  endorsement  of  the 
early  Christian  Church  as  being  veracious  records  of 
the  history  and  doctrines  of  Christ  and  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  his  Church.    It  is  absolutely  certain  that, 
whether   or  not  the  early   Christians  were   mistaken 
in  their  opinion,   this   was   their  opinion.     We  know, 
moreover,  that   the  Christians  of  that  time  were  not 
without   critical  discernment,    and    that   they  distin- 
guished genuine  from  spurious  works.    We  know  that 
thej   doubted  and    differed   concerning  this   or  that 
writing  called  apostolic.    We  know  that  they  did  not 
consciously  admit  pseudonymous  or  unhistorical  works 
into   the   Canon.     If  an  Epistle  purported  to  be   by 
Paul,  it  was  not  received  unless  believed  to  be  really 
by  Paul.    There  were  numerous  Lives  of  Christ  pub- 


CHKISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        Ql 

lished;  but  only  four  were  received  as  authentic.  If 
our  New  Testament  is  made  up  to  any  considerable 
extent  of  spurious  or  fictitious  works,  then  the  Christ- 
ian Church  as  a  whole  either  was  deceived  or  was 
a  wilful  deceiver. 

Now  the  theory  of  a  wholesale  deception  practised 
on  posterity  by  the  early  Church,  even  if  it  could  be 
held  by  any  one,  cannot  be  held  by  a  sincere  Christian. 
It  cannot  be  held  consistently  with  faith  in  Christ 
as  a  teacher  of  religion  and  morals;  for  it  presup- 
poses that  his  earliest  followers  were  made  knaves 
and  cheats  rather  than  the  truth-loving  saints  which 
the  New  Testament  itself  enjoins  men  to  be.  Such 
an  effect  of  Christianity  on  Christian  believers ,  if 
conceivable  at  all,  would  certainly  serve  to  cast  dis- 
credit on  the  Founder,  as  well  as  on  the  adherents, 
of  it.  That  a  sincere  Christian  should  really  believe 
this  to  be  the  fact  is  simply  impossible. 

But  may  not  the  Church  have  been  deceived? 
Amongst  the  numerous  pseudonymous  and  fictitious 
productions  of  that  period  may  not  many  have  im- 
posed on  even  the  most  intelligent  men  and  have  been 
accepted  as  genuine  and  veracious  documents?  The 
question  now  before  us,  however,  it  should  be  re- 
membered, is  whether  it  may  be  supposed  that  in  the 
case  of  the  New  Testament  a  wholesale  deception 
was  practised  on  the  Church,  so  that  the  entire  book 
was  tainted  by  it,  all  the  books,  or  the  greater  part 
of  them,  being  either  untrustworthy  in  their  professed 
statement  of  facts,  or  false  in  their  professed  origin. 

Now  as  to  this  it  must  be  said  that,  if  the  earliest 
records  of  Christianity,  sanctioned  by  the  early  Church 
as   an   authentic   and  authoritative   exposition  of  the 


62 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


facts  and  truths  of  the  gospel,  are  so  fallacious  that 
they  cannot  he  depended  on  as  giving  us  in  general 
a  truthful  statement  of  what  Christ  did  and  said, 
then  it  is  quite  impossible  to  determine  whether  any 
part,  or  what  part,  of  the  New  Testament  is  truthful 
or  genuine ;  we  have  no  standard  by  which  the  writ- 
ings can  be  tested;  we  are  left  afloat  on  a  boundless 
sea  of  conjecture.  Christian  faith ,  under  such  con- 
ditions, becomes  an  indefinable,  capricious,  shifting 
thing,  and  Christ  himself  becomes  lost  in  a  cloud  of 
legends  and  fictions.  Faith  in  him  as  an  infallible 
Teacher  and  as  a  perfect  Redeemer  becomes  im- 
possible, if  not  even  meaningless. 

The  question,  however,  may  assume  this  form: 
Granted  that  in  general  the  New  Testament  can  be 
trusted  as  giving  us  a  correct  account  of  the  origin 
of  Christianity,  yet  may  not  in  some  instances  un- 
historical  narratives  or  spurious  treatises  have  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  accepted  as  apostolic,  or  at  least 
as  authentic,  productions?  The  possibility  oi  this  must 
be  conceded.  Unless  we  hold  (what  we  have  no  proof 
of)  that  the  Church  was  infallibly  guarded  from  all 
error  and  deception,  it  is  conceivable  that  it  may 
have  been,  in  some  few  and  subordinate  instances, 
misled  by  a  plausible  fiction  or  forgery.  But  if  so, 
the  deception  could  have  been  successful  only  because 
the  fraudulent  work,  instead  of  contradicting  accepted 
facts  and  doctrines,  was  in  harmony  with  them.  If, 
however,  the  early  Christians  found  no  such  incom- 
patibility between  the  contents  of  the  doubtful  books 
and  the  others  as  to  awaken  suspicions  of  fraud, 
they  could  have  been  kept  from  being  deceived  only 
by  some  external  evidence  concerning   the  authorship 


CHKISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         ^3 

of  the  books  in  question.  As  tlie  fact  shows,  they 
found  no  such  external  evidence  as  to  warrant  them 
in  rejecting  the  books.  And  if  they  found  none,  at  a 
time  when  it  might  have  been  accessible,  still  less  can 
any  be  found  now,  unless  (what  is  as  good  as  im- 
possible) some  authentic  document  of  that  age,  hith- 
erto unknown,  should  be  discovered  which  would 
demonstratively  prove  that  the  framers  of  the  Canon 
had  been  successfully  deceived. 

There  remains,  then,  for  the  modern  critic  who 
would  discredit  any  of  the  New  Testament  books 
no  evidence  but  internal  evidence,  and  no  more 
of  that  than  was  equally  patent  to  the  scholars 
of  the  early  Church.  The  argument  can  be  only  such 
as  can  be  made  out  by  comparing  the  suspected 
parts  with  the  others  in  regard  to  their  language  and 
contents.  But  inasmuch  as  no  fresh  external  evidence 
is  to  be  had,  and  the  style  and  contents,  not  having 
been  found  to  furnish  decisive  evidence  of  spuriousness 
or  untrustworthiness  to  the  early  Christians,  can  hardly 
furnish  such  evidence  to  the  later  Christians,  it  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  no  case  of  a  fraudulent  or 
fictitious  work  being  smtiggled  into  the  Canon  can  ever 
he  proved.  At  the  most  the  hypothesis  of  fraud  can 
only  in  individual  instances  be  made  somewhat  plau- 
sible; it  can  never  be  made  certain.  In  the  case  of 
the  deuterocanonical  books,  respecting  which  we  know 
that  doubts,  more  or  less  serious,  were  rife  in  the 
early  Church,  one  may  be  justified  in  thinking  that 
perhaps  or  even  probably  the  ultimate  decision  was 
unwarranted  by  the  facts.  These  books  accordmgly 
have  generally  not  had  the  weight  of  full  canonical 
authority.    But  the  presumption  still  remains  that,  even 


(54  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

with  regard  to  them,  the  original  decision  was  correct; 
and  the  opposite  can  never  conclusively  be  made  out. 
With  reference,  however,  to  books  which  were 
originally  unchallenged,  and  which  through  all  the 
Christian  centuries  up  to  the  present  have  been  re- 
garded as  being  what  they  profess  to  be,  the  case  is 
different.  In  so  far  as  the  effort  is  made  to  discredit 
the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  I  need  not  repeat 
what  has  been  already  observed.  But  it  is  often  ar- 
gued that  certain  books,  as,  for  example,  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  or  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  may  be  re- 
garded as  spurious  without  impairing  the  general 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament.  Indeed,  so  far  as 
the  latter  book  and  other  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 
are  concerned,  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they  are 
equally  edifying  whether  written  by  Paul  or  some  one 
else  who  assumed  his  name  ^     They  are  at  any  rate, 

^  So,  e.  g-.,  R.  F.  Horton,  Inspiration  and  the  Bible,  p.  31, 
where  he  says ,  "Those  who  have  drunk  most  deeply  of  the 
spirit  of  those  wonderful  letters  would  never  dream  of  saying 
that  their  value  depended  on  the  question  whether  St.  Paul 
wrote  them  or  not."  Yet  singularly  enough,  he  goes  on  to  take 
up  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  finds  a  large  part  of  the 
interest  and  value  of  the  Epistle  to  consist  in  the  fact  that 
Paul  did  write  it!  But  surely,  if  of  Ephesians,  then  also  of 
Galatians  and  Corinthians,  the  value  does  not  depend  on  their 
Pauline  authorship.  But  in  that  case  what  shall  be  s^id  of  all 
the  personal  testimony  in  the  Epistles?  What  real  value  can 
be  attached  to  the  passage  about  Christ's  resurrection  in 
1  Cor.  XV.,  if  it  is  immaterial  whether  Paul  wrote  it,  or  some 
unknown  man  writing,  no  one  knows  when,  what  for  unknown 
reasons  he  chose  to  put  into  Paul's  mouth  concerning  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ?  Or  when  we  read  what  is  said  of  Christ 
in  Phil.  ii.  5-11  or  Col.  i.  14—20,  is  it  immaterial  when  and 
by  whom  such  statements  were  made?     If  Paul  made  them  — 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         ^5 

we  are  told,  Pauline  in  tone  and  spirit;  and  if 
written  by  some  one  who  was  too  modest  to  give  his 
own  name,  and  who  did  not  have  the  sensitive  con- 
science of  modern  times  as  regards  literary  honesty, 
what  harm,  it  is  asked,  is  there  in  supposing  that  the 
letters  are  pseudonymous  ?  To  all  which  it  need  only 
be  said :  If  the  letters  are  so  Pauline  that  they  anight 
have  been  written  by  Paul,  if  they  profess  to  have 
been  written  by  Paul,  and  were  from  the  first  thought 
to  have  been  written  by  Paul,  then  why,  in  the  name 
of  common    sense ,   should   we  not  believe   that  they 

Paul  who  professed  to  have  received  revelations  from  Christ  him- 
self, Paul  who  had  early  conferences  with  the  original  apostles 
and  declared  himself  to  be  a  preacher  of  the  same  gospel  as 
they  preached  —  if  Paul  made  them,  they  have  assuredly  more 
weight  than  if  made  by  some  unknown  man  of  some  unknown 
later  time.  There  is  undoubtedly  some  force  in  the  allegation 
that  the  value  of  a  Biblical  utterance  does  not  depend  on  our 
knowledge  of  its  author.  An  anonymous  Psalm ,  for  instance, 
may  be  just  as  edifying  as  if  a  name  were  prefixed  to  it.  But 
the  allegation  cannot  be  made  of  universal  application.  It  is 
opposed  to  what  the  higher  critics  themselves  often  aud  prop- 
erly claim  for  their  science,  viz.  that  it  invests  the  Bible  with 
fresh  interest  just  because  it  brings  before  us  the  circumstances 
under  which,  or  the  times  during  which,  the  books  were  written ; 
because  it  undertakes  to  make  real  the  men  who  wrote  them 
and  the  people  for  whom  they  were  written.  If  there  is  any- 
thing in  all  this,  then  surely  the  same  men  cannot  at  the  same 
time  affirm  that  it  makes  no  difference  when  or  by  whom  a 
book  of  the  Bible  was  written.  If  the  result  of  Biblical  criticism 
should  be  to  prove  that  we  know  nothing  about  the  age,  author- 
ship, or  authenticity  of  any  one  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  would  be  necessary  of  course  to  submit  to  the  decision; 
but  it  would  be  only  an  insult  to  one's  common  sense  to  accom- 
pany the  verdict  with  the  unctuous  remark  that  after  all  the 
Scriptures  are  just  as  edifying,  whether  we  can  have  any  assu- 
rance that  the  writings  are  genuine  and  trustworthy  or  not. 

5 


QQ  CHKIST  AND  CKITICISM. 

were  written  by  Paul?  Does  Biblical  criticism  consist 
in  setting  up  hypotheses  that  have  no  solid  found- 
ation and  defending  them  by  the  inane  argument, 
that  we  should  be  just  as  well  off  as  now,  even  if 
they  did  have  a  foundation? 

It  may  be  alleged,  however,  that  there  is  sl  found- 
ation for  the  doubt  concerning  some  of  the  so-called 
Pauline  Epistles.  Although  similar  in  style  and  doc- 
trine to  the  admittedly  genuine  ones,  yet,  it  is  argued, 
they  are  so  far  different  that  a  critical  examination 
shows  them  to  have  been  written  by  other  men  under 
Paul's  name.  As  to  this,  it  can  only  be  said  that 
the  question ,  whether  the  internal  evidence  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  is  conclusive,  is  one 
to  be  passed  on  by  scholarly  and  thoughtful  Christians 
in  general.  And  in  point  of  fact  the  evidence  has 
by  no  means  convinced  the  most  of  those  best  quali- 
fied to  judge.  As  to  the  matter  of  style,  there  is 
just  such  a  mingling  of  similarity  and  variety ,  when 
we  compare  the  disputed  with  the  undisputed  Epistles, 
as  might  be  looked  for  in  letters  written  at  different 
times  and  under  different  circumstances.  As  to  doc- 
trine and  contents,  the  most  that  can  be  made  out 
is  that  the  smaller  Epistles  to  some  extent  treat  of 
different  topics  from  those  of  the  larger  ones,  that 
they  come  somewhat  nearer  to  a  deification  of  Christ, 
and  that  they  do  not  deal  in  a  polemic  against  the 
Judaizers.  But  as  to  the  latter  point,  neither  do  the 
Corinthian  letters  treat  of  it.  As  to  the  second,  no 
Epistle  goes  farther  than  that  to  the  Philippians 
(ii.  5  —  7),  of  which  now  few  even  of  Baur's  disciples 
dispute  the  genuineness.  And  as  to  the  first,  it  is  a 
singular  requirement  that  the  apostle,   in   writing   to 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


67 


different  churches,  must  always  have  handled  precisely 
the  same  themes. 

But  it  is  not  here  in  place  to  discuss  in  detail  the 
merits  of  the  particular  assaults  that  have  been  made 
on   the  genuineness  of  the    Pauline  Epistles.  ^     It  is 


^  So  far  as  these  assaults  have  come  from  the  Tiibingen 
school,  the  force  of  them  is  neutralized  as  soon  as  the  funda- 
mental assumption  relative  to  a  radical  difference  between  Paul 
and  the  other  apostles  is  overthrown.  And  that  it  is  without 
foundation  is  clear  to  any  impartial  man  from  the  very  Epistle 
from  which  the  main  proof  of  the  difference  between  Paul  and 
the  Petrine  party  is  sought  to  be  found.  Paul  here  (Gal.  i.  18, 
ii.  6 — 9)  himself  distinctly  testifies  that  he  and  the  leading 
apostles  were  in  substantial  harmony  before  he  wrote  this 
Epistle.  The  narrative  in  Acts  xv.  perfectly  accords  with  this 
representation.  That  there  was  a  Judaizing  party  among  the 
Christians  is  clear  enough;  but  that  any  of  the  apostles  headed 
or  favored  this  party,  we  have  no  proof  whatever.  Paul's 
designation  of  certain  men  as  those  who  came  from  James 
(Gal.  ii.  12),  when  taken  in  connection  with  ii.  9,  where  James 
is  stated  to  have  given  him  the  right  hand  after  the  apostolic 
conference  had  decided  the  disputed  questions,  cannot  fairly  be 
made  to  mean  more  than  that  they  came  from  the  church  of 
which  James  was  the  pastor  (cf.  Lightfoot  on  Galatians ,  the 
dissertation  on  St.  Paul  and  the  Three,  p.  344,  who  pertinently 
refers  to  Acts  xv.  24  as  a  parallel).  But  in  any  case  James, 
according  to  both  Luke  and  Paul,  had  expressly  sanctioned  the 
exempting  of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  circumcision  and  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  is  the  subject  with 
which  Paul  is  dealing  in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians.  In  fact, 
so  groundless  is  this  whole  theory  of  a  bitter  contention  be- 
tween Paul  and  the  other  apostles  that  Steck,  a  disciple  of  Baur, 
but  one  who  carries  his  skepticism  out  to  the  extreme,  admits 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  any  radical  difference 
between  Paul  and  the  other  apostles,  but  argues  that  later  the 
contention  between  the  Judaizers  and  the  anti-Judaizers  became 
bitter,  and  gave  rise  to  the  forging  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
s' 


(58  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

safe  to  say  that  in  general  they  have  been  successfully 
refuted,   and  that   at  the  most,   even  as  respects  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  the  doubt  can  only  be  made  plau- 
sible, while  external  evidence  against  them  is  wholly 
wanting.     But  the  question  now  is,  whether  it  is  con- 
sistent with  faith  in  Christ  to  suppose  that  in   a  few 
instances  Epistles  falsely  pretending  to  be  written  by 
Paul  may  have  been  admitted  into  the  Canon.     If  to 
any  one  the  evidence  for   such   a  judgment  seems  to 
be  convincing,  may  he  not  adopt  and  avow  it  without 
being  denounced  as  recreant  to    the  Christian  faith? 
This    question  must  be   answered   in  the  affirmative. 
However  perverse  the  judgment  may  appear  to  others, 
and   however    improbable    it    may    be   that    such    an 
opinion  will  ever  become  that  of  Christendom  in  gen- 
eral,  still,    since   the  early  Church  itself  wavered  re- 
specting some  books,    and  since   it  was  not  supernat- 
urally  kept  from  making   mistakes,  it  does  not  seem 
to  be  impossible  that  in  the  cases  supposed  a  mistake 
was    also    made.     Provided    the   New   Testament    in 
general  is  received  as  conveying  to   us  a  correct  ac- 
count   of  Christ    and   his  claims,   and  provided  he  is 
accepted  as  Lord  and  Saviour,    the  critical    opinions 
in   question    do  not   contravene   what  is   essential   to 
Christian  faith. 

The  case  is  similar,  but  not  quite  the  same,  as 
regards  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  does  not  so  unmista- 
kably profess  to  be  written  by  John  as  the  Pauline 
Epistles   profess  to  be  by  Paul;   and  therefore  there 

tians  {Der  Galaterbrief,  p.  371  sqq.).  It  is  strange,  however,^ 
on  this  hypothesis  that  the  forger  did  not  make  out  a  more 
unequivocal  case. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         gg 

may  seem  to  be  more  liberty  to  doubt  its  Johannean 
origin   than    the  Pauline    origin  of  the  Epistles.     On 
the  other  hand,  however,  the  book  really,  though  not 
explicitly,  ascribes  itself  to  John ;  and  the  importance 
of  the  Gospel,  as  standing  in  a  certain  sense  by  itself 
over  against  the  three  others,  gives  it  a  much  greater 
relative  importance  than  even  a  considerable  number 
of  the    Pauline   Epistles.     We    should    have    Paul's 
Christology,    even   though  a  number  of  the  ostensibly 
Pauline  Epistles  were  regarded  as   spurious.     But   if 
John   did  not  write  the  Fourth  Gospel,   if  it    was  a 
fictitious  production  of  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, not  to  be  relied  on  wherever  it  is  not  confirmed 
by  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  then  a  very  important  part 
of  the  Evangelistic   portraiture  of  Jesus  is  removed. 
We  have  no  substitute  for  it  in  any  other  confessedly 
Johannean  production  (for  John^s  First  Epistle,  as  is 
generally  admitted,   must  stand  or  fall  with  the  Gos- 
pel).    If,    however,   the  Gospel  is  supposed  to  have 
been   written    by   some   disciple  of  John  early  in  the 
second   century,    and   to    embody   substantially  what 
John   had  orally  taught   or  had  left  in  written  mem- 
oranda concerning  the  life  and  words  of  Jesus,  then, 
even  though  the  evidence  for  such  a  hypothesis   may 
be    altogether    insufficient    to    establish   it,    still   the 
practical   result  is  not  very  materially  different  from 
that  of  ascribing  the  Gospel  to  John  himself. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  relation  of  crit- 
ical doubt  to  Christian  faith  depends  mainly  on  the 
animus  that  lies  at  the  basis  of  it.  If  the  disposition 
is  to  make  Christian  doctrine  materially  different  from 
what  Christendom  in  general,  following  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  a  whole,  has  pronounced  it  to  be;  if,  especially, 


70 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


in  doing  so,  the  critic  eliminates  the  supernatural  from 
the  Gospels  and  pronounces  the  Johannean  and  Pauline 
writings  spurious,  or  at  least  untrue  to  the  religion 
of  Christ  himself;  if  in  general  the  critic  appears  to 
be  disposed  to  make  his  own  likes  and  dislikes, 
rather  than  historical  testimony  and  the  general  be- 
lief of  Christendom,  the  standard  according  to  which 
he  accepts  or  rejects  books  or  sections  of  books  of 
the  New  Testament;  —  then  whatever,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  charity ,  may  be  thought  of  the  critic's  heart, 
it  is  not  uncharitable  to  say  that  his  critical  pro- 
cesses are  essentially  unchristian.  If  purely  subjective 
standards  of  judgment  may  decide  in  one  case  what 
shall  be  regarded  as  the  truth,  then  equally  in  every 
other.  Every  man  thus  becomes  a  law  to  himself, 
and  there  is  no  common  bond  that  unites  all  Christ- 
ians together.  The  notion,  not  infrequently  ventila- 
ted, that  only  that  is  true  Scripture  which  '^finds"  a 
man,  that  is,  which  makes  on  him  the  impression  of 
being  inspired  or  divine ,  is  radically  vicious.  Even 
though  every  one  might  be  ^^found"  by  certain  por- 
tions of  the  Bible,  neither  any  one  individual,  nor 
all  the  individuals  put  together,  would  by  that  meth- 
od alone  ever  be  able  to  ^'find"  the  Scriptures. 

What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  are  the  prerogatives 
and  uses  of  Biblical  criticism  as  regards  the  New 
Testament?  In  general,  it  is  useful  in  whatever  way 
it  can  throw  light  on  the  origin,  object,  and  mutual 
relations  of  the  New  Testament  books.  Whatever 
well-established  facts  can  be  made  to  illustrate  any 
of  the  topics  and  problems  suggested  by  these  books 
should  be  cordially  welcomed.  Information  gathered 
from  linguistic,   archaeological,   or  historical  sources, 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         7]^ 

which  serves  to  elucidate  the  meaning,  or  present 
more  clearly  the  setting,  of  the  several  books  can  never 
come  amiss.  In  short,  there  should  be  every  encour- 
agement given  to  the  critic  to  find  out  all  the  facts 
which  are  attainable  respecting  the  subject  of  his  in- 
quiry. In  the  long  run  nothing  but  good  can  result 
from  the  discovery  of  truth. 

As  to  the  particular  problems  with  which  New 
Testament  criticism  has  to  do,  they  have,  it  is  true, 
so  long  been  the  subject  of  discussion  and  research 
that  nothing  very  startlingly  novel  can  be  looked  for 
either  in  method  or  result.  Yet  new  light  is  con- 
tinually being  turned  on  old  truths ;  new  objections 
are  raised,  and  new  forms  of  defense  are  resorted  to ; 
or  the  older  form  of  doctrine  may,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  more  searching  induction  of  facts,  give 
place  to  another  form  without  a  surrender  of  the  sub- 
stance. And  all  such  tilling  of  the  old  fields  yields 
its  fruit  in  a  more  intelligent  and  comprehensive  view 
of  Biblical  truth. 

Even  when  opinions  widely  diverge  from  one 
another,  earnest  and  patient  discussion  and  exami- 
nation may  be  expected  to  result  in  some  advance  in 
Biblical  science.  The  Synoptic  problem,  for  example, 
seems  to  be  insoluble.  It  looks  as  if  no  one  theory 
of  the  origin  of  the  first  three  Gospels  would  ever  be 
able  to  drive  every  other  from  the  ground ;  and  much 
toilsome  labor  may  appear  to  yield  very  little  fruit. 
But  anything  that  compels  close  attention  to  the 
details  of  the  sacred  record  is  a  good  thing.  Even 
if  not  the  result  aimed  at,  yet  some  useful  result,  will 
be  attained.  Already  it  has  become  tolerably  clear 
to  the  ordinary  Christian  that  the   resemblances   and 


72  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

differences  of  these  Gospels  are  so  peculiar  as  to 
neccessitate  the  abandonment  of  the  notion  that  they 
were  each  written  in  perfect  independence  of  other 
records  of  Christ's  life  and  discourses.  Whether  we 
shall  ever  be  able  to  penetrate  the  exact  process  is, 
to  be  sure,  problematic;  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
one  result  will  be  to  make  nearly  or  quite  certain 
that  historical  records  of  the  doings  and  sayings  of 
Christ  were  in  existence  soon  after  his  resurrection, 
so  that  our  present  Gospels  shall  prove  to  be  not 
merely  narratives  dating  from  somewhere  near  60  or 
70  A,D.,  but  narratives  which  embody  in  themselves 
still  earlier  records.  But  even  though  no  such  re- 
sult should  become  assured,  yet  the  study  of  the  prob- 
lem must  bring  incidental  good  in  the  attention 
which  it  directs  to  the  minutiae,  as  well  as  to  the 
general  drift,  of  the  Gospel  narratives. 

This  same  minute  comparison  of  the  Gospels  with 
one  another  serves,  it  is  true,  to  call  attention  to 
the  differences  and  discrepancies  between  them.  Yet 
this  too,  if  done  in  the  spirit  of  honest  inquiry,  must 
result  in  good.  If  the  conclusion  should  be  that  there 
are  differences  in  the  description  of  the  same  event,  or 
in  the  report  of  the  same  discourse,  which  cannot 
be  reconciled  so  as  to  avoid  the  assumption  of  in- 
cidental inaccuracy,  no  one  should  be  alarmed  by  the 
fact.  These  variations,  as  has  often  been  insisted 
on,  furnish  a  proof  of  the  absence  of  collusion,  so 
that  we  may  reverently  believe  that  God  himself 
deemed  it  expedient  for  the  security  of  his  own  re- 
velation that  the  Evangelists,  while  doing  their  best 
to  report  faithfully  what  they  had  seen  and  heard, 
should  yet  not  be  lifted  wholly   above  the  infirmities 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  73 

to  which  other  historians  are  subject.  The  general 
harmony  of  impression  in  the  account  of  Jesus'  Messi- 
anic work  is  such  that  no  unprejudiced  man  could 
find  in  the  slight  discrepancies  any  reason  for  a  gen- 
eral distrust  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  record. 

The  same  considerations  apply  to  the  comparison 
of  Acts  with  the  Pauline  Epistles  or  of  these  with 
one  another.  It  is  no  new  field  of  labor ;  but  there  is 
still  room  for  further  research.  And  there  remain 
still  the  old  problems  concerning  the  Aramaic  origi- 
nal of  the  First  Gospel,  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  other  like  questions.  The  prob- 
lems concerning  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  concerning  the  Apocalypse  in  itself  and 
in  its  relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  will  also  prob- 
ably for  some  time  continue  to  engage  the  attention 
of  Biblical  scholars.  Much  that  is  far-fetched  and 
fanciful  is  likely  to  be  advanced  in  the  discussion  of 
such  themes ;  but  the  discussion  should  be  free  and 
full ;  and  in  the  end  what  is  of  real  worth  in  the  new 
contributions  will  become  generally  accepted.  Of 
especial  value  are  the  investigations  in  the  field  of 
patristic  literature  such  as  Zahn,  Harnack,  Sanday, 
Lightfoot,  and  others  have  undertaken,  as  also  in 
that  of  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  period  between 
Malachi  and  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  discovery  of 
manuscripts  of  lost  books ,  such  as  the  works  of 
Hippolytus,  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  the  Teaching  of 
the  Apostles,  and  the  Apology  of  Aristides.  has  been  of 
immense  importance  in  its  bearing  on  certain  disputed 
points  of  New  Testament  criticism;  and  it  encourages 
the  hope  that  still  other  discoveries  may  be  made. 
Who  can  estimate,  for  example,  what  light  might  be 


74 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


thrown    on   many   problems  by  the  discovery  of  the 
lost  writings  of  Papias? 

External  evidence ,  such  as  that  just  referred  to, 
is  of  vastly  more  weight  in  determining  question  of 
date  and  authorship  than  arguments  drawn  merely 
from  a  critical  examination  of  the  contents  of  the 
Biblical  books.  But  criticism  of  the  latter  kind,  al- 
though precarious  and  often  abused,  must  be  defended 
as  legitimate  and  valuable.  In  some  cases  of  doubt 
as  to  the  origin  of  a  book  we  are  nearly  or  quite 
shut  up  to  it.  And  when  the  question  is  raised, 
whether  the  New  Testament  is  an  inspired  and  in- 
fallible book,  the  answer  cannot  be  derived  solely  or 
chiefly  from  historic  testimony.  We  have,  it  is  true, 
the  traditional  doctrine  on  the  subject;  but  when  we 
inquire  on  what  ground  the  belief  in  question  rests, 
no  answer  can  be  satisfactory  which  is  not  founded 
largely  on  an  investigation  of  what  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  themselves  have  to  say. 

Biblical  criticism  of  the  so-called  "higher"  kind 
will  always  have  a  place  in  Biblical  scholarship.  Old 
problems  are  always  springing  up  in  a  new  phase, 
and  new  ones  are  raised,  all  of  which  must  be  met 
and  solved ,  so  far  as  they  can  be  solved ,  by  the 
higher  criticism.  Yet  after  all  the  principal  use  and 
value  of  the  New  Testament  must  always  consist  in 
the  disclosures  it  makes  of  the  love  of  God  and  of 
his  plan  of  salvation  in  Christ.  What  it  communi- 
cates may  be  systematized  into  dogmatic  statements, 
or  brought  home  to  the  heart  and  conscience  in  hom- 
iletic  form,  or  used  privately  as  a  means  of  spirit- 
ual enlightenment  and  edification.  The  practical,  reli- 
gious  use   of  the  Bible   is  the  main  use.     Biblical 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  75 

criticism,  though  often  necessarily  dry  and  without 
any  apparent  practical  use,  must  ultimately,  if  true 
to  itself,  minister  to  the  end  of  making  the  oracles 
of  God  more  than  ever  before  the  source  of  spiritual 
light  and  life. 


CHAPTER  m. 

CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 

When  we  come  to  consider  how  far  Christian  faith 
puts  a  limit  upon  critical  judgments  concerning  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  ohvious  that  the  case  is  consid- 
erably different  from  that  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
the  latter  case  we  are  dealing  with  a  hook  written 
after  Jesus'  earthly  life  was  closed  —  a  book,  there- 
fore, of  which  he  said  nothing,  and  whose  authority 
is  quite  independent  of  any  sanction  coming  directly 
from  him.  We  believe  the  New  Testament,  not  be- 
cause Jesus  endorsed  it,  but  because  it  is  the  written 
embodiment  of  the  same  gospel  which  Jesus  came  to 
preach,  and  which  was  propagated  orally  by  his  dis- 
ciples. We  believe  it  because  we  cannot  reject  it 
without  also  rejecting  him  of  whom  we  have  there 
the  only  early  authentic  records. 

The  Old  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  re- 
ligious book,  claims  the  respect  and  confidence  of 
Christians  primarily  because  it  gives  us  a  history 
that  is  introductory  to  that  of  Christ,  and  because  it 
was  recognized  by  Christ  himself  as  the  vehicle  of 
a  divine  revelation.     The  New  Testament  writers  in 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


77 


general,  and  Christ  as  reported  by  them  in  particular, 
speak  of  it  with  peculiar  respect  as  a  storehouse  of 
religious  history  and  instruction.  In  so  far,  then,  as 
faith  in  Christ  has  specifically  anything  to  do  in  de- 
termining our  judgment  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  in- 
fluence of  it  comes  chiefly  from  the  consideration  that 
what  Christ  himself  held  and  taught  respecting  the 
Old  Testament  should  have  a  controlling  weight  with 
us.  In  short,  while  we  believe  in  the  New  Testament 
because  of  what  it  tells  about  Christ,  we  believe  in 
the  Old  Testament  because  of  what  Christ  tells 
about  it. 

The  consideration  of  the  topic  here  presented 
naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts :  (1)  What  does 
Christ  say  about  the  Old  Testament?  (2)  How  far 
are  his  utterances  to  determine  our  own  judgment? 

I.  In  general,  as  no  can  doubt,  Jesus  speaks  of 
the  Old  Testament  with  the  greatest  reverence  as 
being  a  history  and  vehicle  of  a  divine  revelation. 
He  appeals  to  it  in  his  controversies  with  the  Jews  as 
an  ultimate  authority.  And  no  less  in  his  discourses 
to  his  disciples  does  he  give  it  the  same  dignity. 

To  the  Sadducees,  when  they  questioned  him  about 
the  application  of  the  levirate  law  in  heaven,  he  said, 
*^Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures"  (Matt.  xxii. 
29,  Mark  xii.  24),  and  proceeded  to  enforce  his  an- 
swer by  an  appeal  to  Ex.  iii.  6.  In  his  talk  with  the 
Jews,  as  recorded  in  John  v.,  there  is  the  same  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures  as  authoritative:  ''Ye  search  the 
Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have 
eternal  life ;  and  these  are  they  which  bear  witness 
of  me"  (v.  39,  46).  He  repeatedly  speaks  of  the 
Scriptures  as   prophetic   and  fulfilled   (Matt.  xxi.  42,, 


78 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


Luke  iv.  21),  and  of  the  necessity  of  their  being  ful- 
filled (Matt.  xxvi.  54,  Mark  xiv.  19,  Luke  xxiv.  44, 
John  xiii.  18,  xvii.  12).  He  represents  the  Old 
Testament  in  general  as  being  prophetic  of  him  and 
of  his  work  (Luke  xxiv.  27,  John  v.  39).  He  speaks 
of  the  Scriptures  as  something  that  cannot  be  broken 
(John  X.  35).  He  says  that  he  is  come,  not  to  de- 
stroy the  law  and  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil  them, 
and  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  shall  pass  away  from 
the  law  till  all  of  it  is  fulfilled  (Matt.  v.  17,  18, 
Luke  xvi.  17).  When  he  is  asked  concerning  the 
great  duty  of  man,  he  appeals  at  once  to  the  law 
(Luke  X.  26). 

The  language  and  precepts  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  often  called  by  Christ  the  words  of  God;  e.  g., 
^'For  God  commanded,  saying.  Honor  thy  father  and 
thy  mother"  (Matt.  xv.  4-6,  Mark  vii.  8,  13,  cf.  Matt, 
xxii.  31,  John  x.  35).  What  in  Mark  vii.  10  is  called 
the  commandment  of  Moses  is  spoken  of  in  verses  8 
and  13  as  the  commandment  (word)  of  God.  And 
generally,  even  when  there  is  no  such  explicit  identi- 
fication, what  Moses  prescribed  is  spoken  of  by  our 
Lord  as  divinely  authoritative  (Matt.  viii.  4,  Mark  i. 
44,  John  vii.  19,  23).  Similarly  Moses  and  the  pro- 
phets, (Luke  xvi.  29,  31),  or  the  law  and  the  prophets 
(Matt.  vii.  12,  xi.  13,  Luke  xvi.  16).  So  likewise  the 
prophets  in  particular  (Matt.  xxvi.  56,  Luke  xviii.  31, 
xxiv.  25,  John  vi.  45). 

Nowhere,  moreover,  do  we  find  any  exception  to 
this  reverential  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  on 
Christ's  part.  In  two  cases  he  seems  indeed  to  find 
fault  with  the  law:  viz.,  in  Matt.  v.  38  sqq.,  where 
the  law,    '^An  eye  for   an   eye,"  etc.,   is  followed   by 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         79 

the  injunction,  "But  I  say  unto  you  that  ye  resist 
not  evil" ;  and  in  Matt.  xix.  8  (Mark  x.  5),  where  the 
law  of  Moses  concerning  divorce  is  superseded  by  a 
stricter  one.  But  in  the  first  case  the  point  of  the 
comment  is  not  that  the  law,  as  a  rule  for  magistrates, 
is  to  be  done  away,  but  that  the  law  of  retaliation 
is  not  to  be  made  a  rule  for  men  in  their  private 
relations  to  one  another.  And  in  the  second  case  the 
original  law,  though  declared  to  be  too  laX;  is  yet,  by 
implication,  affirmed  to  have  been  divinely  sanctioned 
on  account  of  the  hardness  of  the  Jews'  hearts. 

Now  since  we  know  how  intense,  even  to  the  point 
of  superstition,  was  the  reverence  cherished  by  the 
Jews  of  Christ's  time  for  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  ob- 
vious that,  if  he  radically  differed  from  them  in  re- 
gard to  it ,  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to  indicate 
the  difference.  But  whenever  he  rebukes  them,  it  is 
not  for  overestimating  the  law,  but  for  perverting, 
misunderstanding,  or  disobeying  it  (e.  g.  Matt,  xxiii. 
2—4,  23,  John  v.  46,  vii.  19).  This  silence  of  Christ 
—  this  tacit  endorsement  of  the  current  view  of  the 
Old  Testament  —  taken  in  connection  with  what  he 
positively  says  about  it,  is  of  no  little  weight. 

To  this  might  be  added  at  great  length  the  general 
manner  in  which  the  New  Testament  writers  speak  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Inasmuch  as  they  wrote  under 
the  influence  of  the  great  Teacher,  who  had  expound- 
ed to  them  the  reference  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
himself  (Luke  xxiv.  27),  and  who  had  opened  their 
mind  that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures  (xxiv. 
45),  it  would  be  pertinent  to  adduce  their  general 
estimate  of  the  Old  Testament  as  reflecting  the  opinion 
of  Christ  himself.     But  this   is  not  necessary.     It  is 


80  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM.  ' 

sufficient  to  say  that  they  fully  agree  with  those  utter- 
ances of  Jesus  which  are  recorded  hy  the  Evangel- 
ists. Everywhere  the  Old  Testament  is  spoken  of 
as  a  book  of  divine  laws  and  prophecies  finding  their 
fulfilment  in  the  new  covenant. 

It  can  at  any  rate  not  be  questioned  that  Christ 
represented  the  Old  Testament  to  be  a  collection  of 
laws,  prophecies,  and  other  writings  possessing  divine 
authority  and  permeated  with  a  prophetic  reference 
to  the  Messianic  dispensation.  When  his  ministry 
was  about  to  begin,  he  appealed  to  the  Scripture  in 
his  conflict  with  Satanic  temptation ;  and  at  the  close 
of  his  ministry  he  took  pains  to  enlighten  his  dis- 
ciples respecting  the  meaning  of  it.  He  never  spoke 
disparagingly  of  any  part  of  it,  but  always  left  the  im- 
pression, by  what  he  said  and  by  what  he  did  not  say, 
that  he  held  it  to  be  the  word  of  God  —  an  embodi- 
ment, in  written  form,  of  the  will  and  wisdom  of 
God  as  revealed  in  his  conduct  of  his  chosen  people. 

II.  But  it  is  important  to  consider  the  question, 
what  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  Christ's  utterances 
respecting  the  Old  Testament.  How  far  do  they 
serve  to  settle  disputed  questions  for  us?  Are  we  to 
assume  that  his  authority  can  properly  be  appealed 
to  at  all  for  the  solution  of  purely  critical  problems  ? 
It  might  at  first  blush  seem  as  if  what  he  thought 
and  said,  if  we  can  only  ascertain  what  that  was, 
ought  to  be  accepted  as  the  final  word  on  all  doubt- 
ful and  disputed  points.  But  this  impression  is  by 
many  regarded  as  unwarranted.  Christ's  authority 
as  a  Eedeemer  and  as  a  revealer  of  divine  truth  — 
his  strictly  religious  commission  —  is  distinguished 
from  his  authority  on  matters  of  science,  history,  and 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  3]^ 

criticism.  While  we  may  trust  him  implicitly  as  our 
spiritual  Head,  we  need  not,  it  is  said,  implicitly 
trust  what  seemed  to  be  his  opinions  on  matters  that 
did  not  directly  concern  his  great  work. 

This  introduces  us  to  a  difficult  theological  prob- 
lem. Was  Christ  omniscient?  Or  if  not  absolutely 
omniscient,  how  are  we  to  conceive  of  the  limitations 
of  his  knowledge  ?  If  the  man  Jesus  was  strictly  om- 
niscient, then  of  course,  since  no  one  will  charge  him 
with  wilful  misrepresentation,  it  follows  that  whatever 
he  said  about  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  every- 
thing else,  is  to  be  received  as  absolute  truth.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  was  a  mere  man,  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  humanity  in  general  and  of  his  own 
time  in  particular,  then,  however  superior  in  most 
respects  he  may  have  been  to  the  generality  of  his 
fellow-men,  his  opinions  on  matters  beyond  the  range 
of  his  immediate  knowledge  cannot  be  regarded  as 
authoritative.  If,  again,  though  not  omniscient,  he 
yet  was  so  unique  in  his  mental  and  spiritual  endow- 
ments that  he  belongs  to  a  class  by  himself,  then  we 
have  to  ascertain ,  as  best  we  can ,  whether  this 
uniqueness  of  endowment  was  such  that  whatever  he 
said,  even  on  matters  not  directly  pertaining  to  his 
mission,  must  be  received  as  strictly  infallible. 

1.  In  prosecuting  this  inquiry  it  is  proper  first  to 
consider  v\^hat  the  general  opinion  of  Christendom 
has  been  upon  the  matter.  And  the  answer  is  nat- 
urally to  be  sought  in  the  creeds  of  the  Churchy  the 
ecumenical  and  such  others  as  have  voiced  the  judg- 
ment of  large  portions  of  the  Church.  These  creeds, 
it  is  true,  cannot  be  adduced  as  infallible.  Being 
themselves  professedly  systematic  statements  of  Scrip- 

6 


g2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

tural  truth,  they  must  be  tested  by  Scripture.  But 
as  embodying  the  interpretation  which  representative 
bodies  of  the  Church  have  put  on  Biblical  doctrine, 
they  are  certainly  deserving  of  very  great  respect. 

The  early  Councils,  in  formulating  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity  and  of  the  Incarnation,  confined  themselves 
mostly  to  general  statements  aiming  to  define  the 
mode  of  the  union  of  three  Persons  in  one,  and  of 
two  Natures  in  one  Person.  And  the  general  burden 
of  their  deliverances  was  that  there  is  one  God  con- 
sisting of  three  Persons  of  one  substance  and  equal 
to  one  another  in  glory.  As  regards  the  Incarnation, 
they  teach  that  the  Logos,  or  eternal  Son,  in  be- 
coming man,  assumed  human  nature,  and  so  united 
in  himself  a  divine  and  human  nature,  but  had  a 
single  personality.  The  Nicene  Creed  puts  this  in  a 
very  general  form;  that  ofChalcedon  is  more  specific, 
being  the  first  to  speak  of  the  union  of  two  natures 
in  the  incarnate  Son,  but  not  yet  formulating  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity;  while  the  Athanasian 
enunciates  both  with  great  minuteness  and  precision. 
But  even  in  the  Nicene  the  doctrine  is  propounded, 
that  "the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  Light  of  Light, 
very  God  of  very  God,  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  was  made  man."  The 
following  creeds  only  state  this  doctrine  more  minutely 
in  opposition  to  heretics;  but  the  substance  remains 
the  same:  Jesus  Christ  is  conceived  to  be  God  and 
Man  in  one  Person.  And  all  the  subsequent  historic 
creeds,  both  Greek,  Eoman  Catholic,  and  Protestant, 
have  echoed  the  same  doctrine. 

The   natural  inference  would  seem  to  be  that,   if 
God  was  made  man,  and  especially  if  in  the  union  of 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  Qg 

God  and  man  the  Logos  is  regarded  as  the  principle 
of  the  new  personality,  then  the  God-man  must  have 
had  the  mental  characteristics  of  God  rather  than  of 
man,  and  that  accordingly  Jesus  must  have  heen 
strictly  omniscient.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  the 
actual  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  in  question  has 
generally  been  different.  Although  the  oneness  of  the 
personality  has  been  insisted  on,  it  has  been  common 
so  to  conceive  of  the  God-man  that,  on  account  of 
the  duality  of  the  nature,  there  was  a  duality  of  men- 
tal characteristics.  Accordingly  it  is  said  that  as  to 
his  divine  nature  he  was  omniscient,  but  that  as  to 
his  human  nature  he  was  limited  in  his  knowledge.^ 
So  also  the  creeds  have  ascribed  to  Christ  a  double 
will,  condemning  monotheletism  as  a  heresy. 

^  See,  e.  g.,  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.,  p.  387  sqq. 
The  Formula  of  Concord  stands  almost  or  quite  alone,  among 
the  conspicuous  Creeds  of  the  Church,  in  affirming  omniscience 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  In  Art.  VIII  among  the  errors 
condemned  is  (No.  XV)  "that,  according  to  the  humanity,  he 
[the  Son  of  Uod]  is  not  at  all  capable  of  omnipotence  and  other 
properties  of  the  divine  nature".  And  more  specifically  as  to 
omniscience  it  is  condemned  as  an  error  (No.  XVII)  to  hold 
"that  to  Christ,  according  to  his  human  spirit,  certain  limits 
are  appointed  as  to  how  much  it  behooves  him  to  know".  In 
the  positive  Christological  statements  of  the  same  Article 
(Sect.  XI)  it  is  said,  "Therefore  now  [i.  e.  as  glorified]  not  only 
as  Grod,  but  also  as  man,  he  knows  all  things,  can  do  all  things", 
etc.  In  his  earthly  life,  the  same  Section  teaches,  Christ  divested 
himself  of  the  divine  majesty,  and  "did  not  always  make  use 
of  that  majesty,  but  as  often  as  seemed  good  to  him".  —  In 
Sect.  Ill,  however,  it  is  expressly  said  of  the  distinctively  divine 
attributes  of  omnipotence,  eternity,  omniscience,  etc.,  "All  these 
things  neither  are  nor  ever  become  the  attributes  of  the  human 
nature".  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  this  latter  affirmation  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  others. 

6* 


04:  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

The  obvious  difficult}^  with  this  mode  of  concep- 
tion is  that  cognition  and  volition  seem  to  be  personal 
characteristics,  so  that  to  say  that  a  person  has  two 
distinct  wills  and  two  sets  of  cognitions  is  equivalent 
to  saying  that  the  personality  is  a  double  one.  And 
accordingly  there  has  been  a  wide-spread  tendency 
in  recent  times  to  modify  the  doctrine  of  the  God- 
man  so  as  to  ascribe  to  him  a  single  personalit}^  in 
a  less  ambiguous  way.  This  is  done  by  assuming 
that  the  deity  in  the  God-man  was,  as  it  were,  only 
germinally  present  at  first  and  was  gradually  impart- 
ed, becoming  complete  only  in  the  glorified  Redeemer ; 
so  that  the  historical  Jesus,  although  unique,  was  yet 
subject,  in  all  the  development  of  his  personal  traits,, 
to  limitations  which  which  were  overcome  only  by 
degrees.  This  theory  avoids  the  difficulty  involved 
in  the  other  —  the  apparent  self-contradiction  of  as- 
suming two  sets  of  personal  attributes  in  a  single 
person;  but  it  has  some  difficulties  of  its  own,  espe- 
cially if  the  intention  is  to  remain  true  to  the  old 
doctrine  of  two  natures  in  one  person.  The  divine 
nature  seems  to  be  so  thoroughly  emptied  of  divine 
characteristics  that  it  becomes  questionable  whether 
the  incarnate  Logos  can  properly  be  called  divine 
at  all.  And  the  conception  of  a  person,  at  first  a^D- 
parently  only  human,  gradually  becoming  divine,  is 
not  altogether  consistent  with  the  ordinary  notion  of 
a  radical  distinction  between  deity  and  humanity. 

But  whether  standing  on  one  confessional  basis 
or  another,  theologians  have  not  generally  ascribed 
to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  as  he  was  in  his  earthly 
life,  strict  omniscience.  Whether  they  have  thought 
of  him  as    having  voluntarily  divested  himself  of  his 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  35 

strictly  divine  attributes,  or  as  otherwise  limited,  — 
in  either  case  they  have  assumed  some  limitations 
of  his  divine  attributes,  and  among  them  of  his  om- 
niscience. At  the  same  time  in  one  form  or  another 
they  have  assumed  that  in  knowledge  and  power,  as 
well  as  in  his  moral  character,  Christ  was  altogether 
unique  among  men. 

But  it  is  not  in  place  here  to  criticise  the  creeds, 
or  to  construct  a  dogmatic  statement  concerning  the 
peculiar  nature  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  assume  that  the  creeds  are  legitimately  deduced 
from  the  Scriptures.  We  assume  simply  that  the 
New  Testament  gives  us  a  truthful  account  of  the 
facts  concerning  Christ.  If  the  creeds  seem  to  state 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  imperfectly,  one- 
sidedly,  or  erroneously,  no  one  can  be  required  to 
abjure  his  own  judgment  and  accept  a  statement 
which  seems  to  him  untrue  to  the  Biblical  teaching. 
No  one  can  properly  be  required  to  adopt  any  par- 
ticular dogmatic  view  of  the  incarnation  or  deity  of 
Christ,  unless  the  New  Testament  itself  seems  to  af- 
firm it.  We  have  only  to  consider  the  person  Jesus 
as  he  is  portrayed  to  us  in  the  Biblical  records,  and 
to  decide  whether  according  to  that  portraiture  he 
was  omniscient,  or,  if  not,  to  what  extent  his  know- 
ledge is  to  be  assumed  to  have  been  limited. 

2.  What,  then,  does  the  New  Testament  teach  us 
on  this  point?  If  we  first  raise  the  question,  whether 
Christ  is  there  represented  as  absolutely  omniscient, 
we  can  apparently  without  much  difficulty  find  a  neg- 
ative answer.  There  are  particularly  two  statements, 
one  positive  and  the  other  negative,  which  seem  to 
settle   the   question.     In  Luke  ii.  52  it  is    said  that 


gg  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

^'Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  and  stature  and  in  favor 
with  God  and  men".  This  certainly  seems  to  be  a 
plain  affirmation  that  Jesus'  wisdom  (and  of  course 
his  knowledge)  was  susceptible  of  growth,  and  leaves 
the  impression  that  in  this  respect  he  was  like  other 
human  beings.  This  certainly  holds  true,  according 
to  this  passage,  of  the  early  part  of  his  life.  It  may 
be  held  that  the  period  of  limitation  terminated  at 
his  baptism,  or  at  any  rate  at  his  ascension.  But 
against  the  first  of  these  possible  hypotheses  stands 
the  other  explicit  statement,  Mark  xiii.  32  (to  which 
now  perhaps  is  to  be  added,  according  to  the  critical 
text,  Matt.  xxiv.  36),  in  which  Jesus  himself  declares 
that  '^of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not 
even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father".  This  is  unequivocal,  and  cannot  fairly  be 
understood  otherwise  than  according  to  the  obvious 
meaning.  Such  an  explanation  as  that  given  by  some 
of  the  older  theologians,  for  example,  Jerome,  that 
the  passage  imputes  ignorance  to  the  Church  rather 
than  to  its  Head,  is  so  violent  that  it  only  shows  the 
difficulty  of  any  other  interpretation  of  the  passage 
than  that  which  lies  on  the  face  of  it.  Scarcely  less 
forced  is  Augustine's  explanation  (followed  by  many), 
that  Christ  did  not  know  so  as  to  make  known  to 
others.  This  makes  little  less  than  a  direct  falsehood 
of  Christ's  affirmation,  and  one  the  motive  for  which 
is  difficult  to  imagine.  The  declaration  was  not  made 
in  answer  to  a  question,  so  that  there  is  no  pretext 
for  supposing  that  Christ  is  here  repelling  an  undue 
curiosity.  And  when  after  his  resurrection  he  was 
questioned  by  his  disciples  on  the  same  point,  he 
met  the  question  by  an  answer  which  shows  that  he 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  Q'J 

could  deal  with  curiosity  otherwise  than  by  cowardly 
deception:  ^*It  is  not  for  you  to  know  times  or  sea- 
sons"; and  when  he  adds,  ''which  the  Father  hath 
set  within  his  own  authority",  he  here  again,  though 
somewhat  less  explicitly,  intimates  that  the  time  of 
his  coming  into  his  kingdom  is  known  only  to  the 
Father. 

What  is  directly  affirmed  in  these  passages  is  more 
or   less    distinctly  implied  in  many  others.     When  it 
is  said  (Heb.  v.  8)  that  Jesus  "learned  obedience  by 
the  things  which  he  suffered",  and  when  (Heb.  ii.  10) 
he  is  said  to  have  been   ''made  perfect   through   suf- 
ferings",  it   is  certainly  affirmed  of  him  that  he  was 
subject   to    growth.     Reference    is   indeed    not    made 
specifically   to   the   mere  acquisition  of  knowledge  iu 
the  ordinary  sense;    but  learning  obedience   and  be- 
coming   perfect  through    suffering    cannot    naturally 
be  conceived  as  co-existing  with  a  knowledge   which 
was    absolutely    unlimited    from    the    beginning.      It 
gives,   moreover,   an  unnaturalness  and  insincerity  to> 
many  things  in  the  life  of  Christ,  if  such  an  absolute 
omniscience  is  assumed.     If  he  was  thus  all-knowing, 
how  could  he  "marvel"  at  the  centurion's  faith  (Matt. 
viii.  10)   or   at   the  Galileans'  unbelief  (Mark  vi.  6)? 
How  could    he   have  prayed,  "If  it    be  possible,  let 
this  cup  pass  away  from  me"?  Why  should  it  be  said 
of  him  that  he  withdrew  into  Galilee  "when  he  heard 
that  John  was  delivered  up"  (Mati.  iv.  12),  if  he  knew 
it  without  being  informed? 

And  yet  when  one  is  disposed  to  draw  a  sweep- 
ing inference  from  such  things  and  to  conclude  that 
Jesus  was  essentially  like  other  men  in  the  matter  of 
knowledge,  he  is  at  once  confronted  by  another  class 


88 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


of  facts  that  point  to  an  altogether  unique  intelligence. 
At  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry  we  read  that  he 
had  a  supernatural  knowledge  concerning  Nathanael  and 
his  character  (John  i.  47.  48).  Repeatedly  he  is  said 
to  have  known  the  thoughts  of  those  who  were  about 
him  (Matt.  ix.  4,  xii.  25,  Luke  vi.  8,  xi.  17,  John  vi. 
61,  84,  xiii.  11);  he  is  said  to  have  known  all  the 
things  that  were  coming  upon  him  (John  xviii.  4). 
Such  was  the  impression  which  he  made  on  his  dis- 
ciples that  John  makes  the  general  statement,  ^'He 
knew  all  men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  bear 
witness  concerning  man;  for  he  himself  knew  what 
was  in  man"  (ii.  24,  25).  And  Peter,  after  Christ's 
resurrection,  said  to  him,  ^'Thou  knowest  all  things" 
(John  xxi.  17).  When  he  was  told  of  Lazarus's  sick- 
ness, he  remained  two  days  where  he  was,  and  then 
announced  Lazarus's  death,  although  not  told  of  it. 
He  uttered  formal  predictions  of  what  was  to  take 
place  in  the  future,  —  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
Judas's  treason,  Peter's  denial,  his  own  approaching 
death  and  the  manner  of  it. 

And  even  the  very  passage  which  most  unmistak- 
ably affirms  the  limitation  of  his  knowledge  affirms 
by  implication  that  he  possessed  knowledge  in  an 
altogether  unique  degree.  In  saying  that  ^^of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels 
of  heaven ,  neither  the  Son",  Christ  indirectly  affirms 
that  it  might  naturally  have  been  expected  that  he 
would  know  not  only  what  other  men  do  not  know, 
but  what  even  the  angels  in  heaven  do  not  know. 
The  very  affirmation  of  ignorance  strikes  the  reader 
as  something  surprising.  The  declaration  occurs, 
moreover,  in   the   midst   of  a  discourse  which  deals 


•CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.         gQ 

with  future  events  that  no  one  but  Christ  would  have 
ventured  to  pretend  to  be  able  to  foretell.  Although 
he  is  described  as  learning  and  asking  questions,  yet 
he  always  makes  the  impression  of  being  fully  informed 
with  reference  to  whatever  he  spoke  about;  and  he 
spoke  with  an  authority  and  power  which  overawed 
even  his  enemies.  He  claimed  an  intimacy  with  Grod 
which  seems  to  guarantee  a  fulness  of  knowledge  en- 
tirely unparalleled :  ''I  know  mine  own,  and  mine  own 
know  me,  even  as  the  Father  knoweth  me,  and  I  know 
the  Father"  (John  x.  14,  15).  ''All  things  have  been 
delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father;  and  no  one  know- 
eth the  Son  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  know 
the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the 
Son  willeth  to  reveal  him"  (Matt.  xi.  27).  "If  ye 
knew  me,  ye  would  know  my  Father  also"  (John  viii. 
19).  "He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father" 
<xiv.  9). 

But  apart  from  particular  utterances  from  Jesus  him- 
self or  from  others  concerning  the  extent  of  his  know- 
ledge, one  cannot  but  draw  an  inference  from  the  general 
characterization  which  the  New  Testament  gives  of 
him.  He  calls  himself  the  AVay,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life  (John  xiv.  6).  He  announced  that  he  would  draw 
all  men  unto  himself  (xii.  32).  He  professes  to  have 
come  on  earth  to  redeem  men  from  sin  and  death 
(Luke  xix.  10,  John  xi.  25),  and  calls  himself  the 
Light  of  the  world  (John  viii.  12).  He  assumes  the 
prerogative  of  universal  judge  (Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46).  And 
what  he  himself  claims  his  followers  all  accord  to 
him.  He  is  to  them  all  in  all  (Col.  iii.  11),  the  Son 
of  God  through  whom  all  things  were  made  (John  i. 
3,  10,  Col.  i.  16,  Heb.  i.  2).     He  is  called  the  power 


90  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

and  the  wisdom  of  God  (1  Cor.  i.  24),  the  one  who 
was  made  unto  men  wisdom  and  righteousness  and 
sanctification  and  redemption  (i.  30).  He  is  called 
the  High  Priest  who  is  able  to  succor  all  that  are 
tempted  (Heb.  ii.  17,  18).  He  is  called  the  King  of 
kings  and  Lord  of  lords  (Rev.  xvii.  14,  xix.  16),  the 
Head  of  an  everlasting  kingdom  (Luke  i.  33,  2  Pet. 
i.  11).  He  is  described  as  a  divine  being  who  came 
down  from  heaven  to  earth  and  has  now  returned  to 
the  glory  which  he  had  before  (John  i.  1 — 14,  xvii. 
5,  Phil.  ii.  5—11,  Heb.  i.  3). 

Now  it  is  impossible  not  to  suppose  that  a  being 
so  uniquely  endowed  and  invested  with  such  exalted 
prerogatives  was  gifted  with  altogether  unique  know- 
ledge. He  who  is  to  be  the  King  and  Judge  of  all 
men  surely  cannot  exercise  his  office  without  something 
approximating  to  omniscience;  and  we  cannot  there- 
fore be  surprised  when  Paul  speaks  of  Christ  as  the 
one  in  whom  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  know- 
ledge are  hidden  (Col.  ii.  3).  And  even  if  it  be  supposed 
that  Jesus  is  now,  in  his  exalted  state,  possessed  of 
a  degree  of  knowledge  which  he  did  not  have  in  his 
earthly  life,  still  the  representations  which  he  made 
of  himself  and  which  others  made  of  him  concerning 
his  earthly  life  necessitate  the  assumption  of  a  know- 
ledge as  unique  as  the  functions  which  he  had  to 
exercise.  It  is,  therefore,  not  strange  that  theologians 
have  often  spoken  of  him  as  if  he  were  omniscient 
in  the  strictest  sense.  It  is  true  that  the  hypothesis 
of  a  double  cognitive  faculty,  such  that  Jesus  can  be 
said  to  have  been  omniscient  as  to  his  divine  nature^ 
but  not  omniscient  as  to  his  human  nature,  aside 
from  its   seeming  incompatibility  with  the  singleness 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  9]. 

of  his  personality,  makes  Christ's  omniscience  practi- 
cally of  no  authority  in  disputed  cases.  The  objector 
can  always  say,  with  reference  to  anything  said  to  be 
established  by  Christ's  assertion,  that  Christ  may 
have  said  it  in  his  human  nature  and  may  therefore 
have  spoken  erroneously.  No  doubt,  it  will  always 
be  difficult  to  frame  any  hypothesis  which  will  fully 
and  clearly  solve  all  the  problems  which  are  suggested 
by  the  New  Testament  delineation  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  Christ.  This  is  not  strange,  for  he  is 
set  before  us  an  altogether  unique  being :  human  and 
yet  superhuman;  one  with  God,  and  yet  tempted  in 
all  points  like  other  men ;  tempted,  yet  sinless. 

Nevertheless  it  remains  an  ineffaceable  fact  that 
the  Christian  Church  recognizes  Christ  as  an  infallible 
Teacher.  He  is  the  Light  that  lighteth  every  man, 
the  Mediator  who  could  say  of  himself,  "I  am  the 
door  of  the  sheep"  (John  x.  7).  No  metaphysical 
difficulty,  encountered  in  trying  to  formulate  a  dogma 
which  shall  duly  recognize  both  the  human  and  the 
divine  elements  that  seem  to  have  entered  into  the 
personality  of  Christ,  will  ever  persuade  the  Christian 
world  that  there  was  in  him  no  such  unique  union  of 
apparently  contradictory  attributes.  Christians  would 
never  have  made  such  valiant  and  persistent  efforts 
to  formulate  the  doctrine  of  a  single  person  with  two 
natures,  unless  there  had  been  something  in  the  phe- 
nomena of  Jesus'  personality  which  presented  the 
problem  and  drove  them  to  attempt  a  solution.  That 
the  attempts  have  not  been  entirely  successful,  that 
they  have  disagreed  with  one  another,  that  they  have 
often  seemed  to  involve  the  dogmatician  in  self-con- 
tradiction ;  —  all  this,  though  it  may  make  some  despair 


92  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

of  sounding  the  depth  of  the  mystery,  still  does  not 
convince  them  that  there  is  no  mystery  to  be  sounded. 
On  the  contrary,  the  abiding  fact  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  the  authentic  record  of  Christ's  life  and 
mission,  and  the  fact  of  Christianity  as  the  outflow 
of  that  life  and  mission ,  furnish  the  elements  of  the 
problem;  and  the  difficulty  of  solving  it  is  only  what 
the  greatness  and  uniqueness  of  the  facts  might  lead 
us  to  expect.  So  far  from  being  deterred  from  believing 
in  the  facts  because  of  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  them 
to  one  another,  the  Christian  may  almost  adopt  the 
paradox  of  the  fiery  TertuUian ,  and  say,  ^'I  believe, 
because  it  is  impossible". 

3.  Assuming  now,  what  the  New  Testament 
plainly  teaches,  that  Jesus  was  an  altogether  unique 
person  in  his  mental  and  spiritual  endowments ,  we 
have  next  to  inquire  how  far  his  knowledge  was 
limited.  The  question  is  not  easy  to  answer.  It  is 
only  incidentally  and  indirectly  that  any  intimations 
of  the  limitation  are  given,  and  no  general  statement 
on  the  subject  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
Any  attempt  to  generalize  with  reference  to  it  ends 
at  the  best  only  in  a  hypothesis  the  correctness  of 
which  cannot  be  rigidly  tested.  When,  for  example, 
Thomas  Aquinas  ^  says  that  Christ's  human  know- 
ledge embraced  everything  actual  in  the  world,  but 
not  the  possible ,  the  distinction  is  immediately  seen 
to  be  one  which  cannot  be  verified  by  the  statements 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  which  could  not  have  been 
directly  suggested  by  anything  in  them. 

^  Summa  Theologiae,  Pars  iii.  Qu.  x.  2. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  93 

How,  then,  shall  we  fix  the  limit?  If  we  have  no 
express  information  on  the  subject  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  if  any  attempt  to  draw  the  line  is  at  the 
best  doomed  to  end  in  an  unverifiable  hypothesis, 
shall  we  not  abandon  the  effort  to  formulate  the 
doctrine?  And  yet  no  one  can  wholly  avoid  having 
some  theory  more  or  less  well  defined.  A  distinction 
now  much  in  vogue  is  this:  that  Christ  was  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  his  time  in  all  matters  of  physical 
science,  history,  etc.,  and  that  his  superior  know- 
ledge pertained  only  to  moral  and  religious  matters. 
The  work  of  redeeming  men  from  sin,  it  is  said, 
being  a  purely  spiritual  one,  required  no  extraor- 
dinary knowledge  of  matters  having  no  relation  to 
this  work.  Of  what  use  was  it  for  him  to  be  acquaint- 
ed with  the  topography  of  the  North  Pole  ?  or  with 
the  true  theory  of  light?  or  with  all  the  details 
of  human  history? 

This,  although  a  mere  hypothesis,  not  directly 
suggested  or  confirmed  by  anything  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  yet  plausible  enough.  According  to  it  one 
may  hold  that  Christ,  as  an  ethical  teacher  and  as 
a  revealer  of  the  divine  character  and  purposes,  was 
to  be  fully  trusted,  though  in  other  things  he  was 
liable  to  error.  It  implies  that  he  had  a  supernatural 
knowledge  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  but  that  in  other  things  he  had  to  learn  and 
make  acquisitions  like  other  men.  Does  this  hypothesis, 
now,  agree  with  the  reported  facts?  It  is  certainly 
in  accord  with  the  obvious  fact  that  the  mission  of 
Christ  was  a  spiritual  one,  and  with  the  Biblical  re- 
presentation that  in  the  spiritual  sphere  he  is  to  be 
regarded  as  an  infallible  Master.     But  what  about  the 


94 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


other  side  of  the  theory?  When,  for  instance,  it  is 
narrated  (Matt.  xxi.  1 — 3,  Mark  xi.  1 — 3,  Luke  xix. 
29 — 31)  that  Jesus  sent  his  disciples  from  Bethphage 
to  a  village  over  against  them,  announcing  to  them 
that  they  would  there  find  an  ass  tied  which  they 
were  to  bring  to  him,  we  have  here  a  marked  instance 
of  superhuman  knowledge,  yet  pertaining  to  a  secular 
matter  having,  so  far  as  one  can  see,  no  immediate 
relation  to  spiritual  things.  So  when  he  sent  his 
disciples  into  the  city  to  make  ready  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Passover,  and  told  them  that  they  would 
there  meet  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water  (Mark  xiv. 
13,  Luke  xxii.  10),  we  have  a  similar  instance  of  a 
foreknowledge  of  a  contingent  and  apparently  in- 
different circumstance  —  a  knowledge  not  explained 
by  the  general  proposition  that  Jesus  was  super- 
naturally  endowed  as  to  moral  and  religious  truth 
only.  Or  again,  when  (Matt.  xvii.  27)  Jesus  told 
Peter  to  catch  a  fish  and  find  a  shekel  in  its  mouth, 
and  when  (Luke  v.  4—7,  John  xxi.  6)  he  gave  the 
disciples  instruction  how  to  cast  their  nets  so  as  to 
catch  an  astonishingly  large  number  of  fishes,  can  the 
preternatural  knowledge  here  displayed  be  regarded 
as  directly  concerned  with  matters  vital  to  his  heavenly 
mission? 

Should  it  be  said  that  in  these  latter  cases  the 
foreknowledge  was  involved  in  an  intended  miracle 
—  that  Christ  must  have  known  what  he  was  pur- 
posing to  do,  though  he  might  not  know  things  re- 
specting which  he  had  no  such  purpose,  the  objection 
refutes  itself.  For  if  Jesus  was  able  to  know  what 
would  happen  whenever  he  intended  to  work  a  miracle ; 
if  he  knew,  before  he  said,  ^Teace,  be  still",  that  the 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  95 

storm  on  the  lake  would  at  once  cease ;  if  he  knew, 
when  he  ordered  the  five  thousand  to  sit  down  on 
the  grass ,  that  a  miraculous  supply  of  food  would 
be  furnished  to  them ;  if  he  knew  that  the  blind  man 
would  recover  his  sight  after  washing  in  the  pool  of 
Siloam,  —  why,  then  his  knowledge  must  at  least 
have  been  co-ordinate  with  his  power.  The  possession 
of  supernatural  power  involves  supernatural  know- 
ledge as  a  part  of  itself.  And  however  true  it  may 
be  that  that  power  was  exercised,  not  wantonly,  but 
in  order  to  the  furtherance  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
yet  the  potver  to  work  miracles  implies  a  lordship 
over  nature  and  man  which  involves  a  supernatural 
knowledge,  possessed  even  when  the  miraculous  power 
was  not  exercised,  —  unless  indeed  we  are  to  suppose 
that  his  working  of  miracles  was  a  hap-hazard, 
spasmodic  performance,  entered  upon  under  the  im- 
pulse of  momentary  excitement  without  his  being 
quite  sure,  before  he  began,  whether  his  effort  would 
be  successful.  But  since  this  was  not  the  case,  since 
Jesus  was  never  more  calm  and  sure  of  himself  than 
when  he  was  doing  his  mightiest  works,  it  must  be 
concluded  that  he  wrought  them  in  the  consciousness 
of  possessing  a  fulness  of  power  the  exercise  of  which 
was  restrained  and  regulated  by  a  wise  regard  to  the 
spiritual  interests  of  men.  And  then  it  follows,  further, 
that,  as  the  limited  number  of  miracles  wrought  implies 
the  power  to  work  an  indefinite  number,  so  the 
supernatural  knowledge  of  things  in  the  natural  world 
must  have  been  vastly  greater  than  was  disclosed  in 
the  particular  miracles  themselves. 

But  apart  from  these  intimations   of  the  Biblical 
record  itself,   this   sharp    distinction   between    know- 


96 


CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


ledge  of  spiritual,  and  knowledge  of  secular,  things^^ 
can  hardly  maintain  itself.  It  cannot  be  carried  out. 
The  line  cannot  be  drawn  between  purely  religious 
and  purely  scientific  knowledge.  Every  man's  religious 
life  is  interwoven  with  his  physical  condition  and  with 
his  relation  to  the  outward  world.  And  he  who 
would  understand  fully  the  one  must  also  fully  know 
the  other.  It  would  be  almost  inconceivable  that  an 
eminent  moralist  should  be  ignorant  of  secular  affairs. 
The  more  authoritative  he  would  be  in  his  utterance 
of  ethical  truths  and  maxims,  the  more  thoroughly 
must  he  know  men  as  they  are,  with  all  their  physi- 
cal weaknesses,  their  mental  peculiarities,  and  their 
outward  temptations.  And  if  Christ  was  to  be  far 
more  than  a  great  moralist;  if  he  was  to  be  the  in- 
fallible Head  of  a  kingdom  of  saints ;  if  he  was  to 
be  the  universal  Judge  of  men,  —  a  fortiori  would  it 
seem  to  have  been  necessary  that  he  should  have  an 
extraordinary  knowledge  of  all  the  complicated  rela- 
tions of  human  life.  It  would  seem  incredible  that 
he  should  have  an  intuitive  and  infallible  knowledge 
of  truth  in  the  abstract,  and  yet  be  obliged  to  depend, 
for  his  knowledge  of  the  practical  application  of  it, 
upon  the  toilsome  and  slow  acquisition  of  historical 
and  sociological  knowledge,  and  be  liable  to  make 
mistakes  after  all. 

Moreover,  when  we  look  at  the  subject  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Christ's  special  mission ,  we  are  led 
to  a  similar  inference.  What  qualifications  were 
essential  to  the  execution  of  it?  Perfect  sinlessness,. 
no  doubt,  was  one.  And  the  fulfilment  of  this  condi- 
tion is  distinctly  attested  in  the  New  Testament. 
Now  freedom  from   sin   is   indeed   conceivable    in   a. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  97 

person  of  limited  intellectual  capacities,  as  vice  versa 
intellectual  eminence  is  often  found  in  conjunction 
with  a  low  state  of  morals.  But  is  it  easily  thinkable 
that  for  such  a  unique  work  as  that  to  which  Christ 
was  appointed  there  should  not  have  been  given  him 
also  exceptional  mental  endowments?  Can  we  think 
of  him  as  a  man  of  inferior,  or  even  of  only  ordinary, 
intellectual  power?  Entirely  apart  from  any  question 
about  strict  omniscience,  the  unparalleled  work  com- 
mitted to  him  must,  it  would  seem,  have  required 
not  only  a  quick  conscience,  but  also  extraordinary 
sagacity  of  mind.  Even  in  his  capacity  as  teacher  of 
morals  we  cannot  conceive  of  him  as  commanding 
respect  for  his  authority  unless  he  was  able  to  in- 
spire peculiar  respect  for  his  intellectual  greatness. 
A  weak-minded  man  may  be  very  good;  but  he  is 
not  therefore  qualified  to  set  himself  up  as  a  teacher 
of  ethics  and  religion.  To  instruct,  and  to  instruct 
with  authority,  requires  a  mind  able  to  grasp  truth 
with  clearness  and  to  state  it  with  force.  That 
Christ's  was  such  a  mind  is  plainly  enough  indicated 
in  the  New  Testament.  We  can  well  understand 
that  the  people  were  astonished  at  his  teaching,  and 
that  his  answers  to  cavillers  were  so  pertinent  and 
crushing  that  they  were  intimidated  and  durst  ask 
him  no  more  questions. 

Now  although  Jes as'  primary  work  was  a  religious 
one,  it  is  unwarrantable  to  assume  that  his  intel- 
lectual powers  were  adapted  only  to  grasp  religious 
truth.  Even  if  it  were  conceivable  that  one  could 
apprehend  religious  truth  with  the  clearness  and  in- 
fallibility which  characterized  him,  and  at  the  same 
time   have    no   peculiar    ability    to    apprehend  other 

7 


93  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

kinds  of  truth,  yet  such  a  combination  of  strength 
and  weakness  would  be  an  anomaly  for  the  fact  of 
which  we  should  require  peculiarly  strong  proof.  The 
presumption  is  well  nigh  insurmountable  that  hi& 
mind  was  one  which  quickly  seized  all  the  truth  that 
came  before  it,  and  seized  it  with  a  precision  and  ac- 
curacy that  were  as  marked  as  his  general  superiority 
of  endowment. 

It  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  these  considera- 
tions that  Jesus  was  actually  acquainted  with  all  de- 
l^artments  of  truth ,  so  that,  if  he  had  chosen ,  he 
could  have  propounded  correct  and  complete  systems 
of  geology,  astronomy,  chemistry,  and  biology.  While 
we  have  no  right  dogmatically  to  affirm  that  he  was 
as  ignorant  of  such  sciences  as  his  contemporaries  in 
general,  yet  on  the  other  hand  we  have  no  evidence 
that  he  was  not.  He  had  no  occasion  to  treat  these 
topics  scientifically.  What  he  knew,  or  did  not  know, 
concerning  matters  entirely  foreign  to  his  special  work, 
it  is  idle  to  speculate.  But  when  we  consider  truths 
and  aspects  of  truth  which  must  or  naturally  might 
have  presented  themselves  to  his  mind,  and  especially 
such  as  were  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  the 
themes  with  which  he  had  to  deal,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  a  proper  Christian  faith  can  conceive  of  him 
as  falling  into  error  and  inculcating  it.  At  all  events, 
it  must  be  insisted  on  as  scarcely  questionable,  that 
Christ  was  distinctly  conscious  of  the  extent  of  his 
own  knowledge  —  he  kneiv  what  he  knetv,  and  never 
made  positive  affirmations  unless  he  was  sure  of  the 
correctness  of  what  he  said.  If  he  was  ignorant  of 
some  things,  he  did  not  pretend  to  know  them,  and 
did    not   make   conjectural    statements    about    them. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  9^ 

AVhat  he  taught  he  taught  with  the  positiveness  of 
full  conviction  and  assurance;  he  spoke  with  authority. 
There  is  no  guesswork  in  what  he  said.  He  did  not 
speak  doubtfully  and  hypothetically.  We  might  expect 
him  to  refrain  from  discoursing  about  things  which 
did  not  concern  the  main  work  for  which  he  was 
sent;  but  w^hen  he  did  speak  there  is  the  strongest 
presumption  that  he  could  always  say,  what  he  once 
did  say,  w^ith  reference  to  his  teachings,  ''We  speak 
that  we  do  know,  and  bear  witness  of  that  we  have 
seen"  (John  iii.  11). 

At  all  events  all  Christians  must  assume  that  as 
to  religious  matters  —  matters  with  which  his  mis- 
sion was  especially  concerned  —  Christ's  know^ledge 
was  complete  and  authoritative.  It  is  simply  impossible 
to  regard  him  as  the  perfect  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King,  as  the  Anointed  of  God,  as  the  one  who  had 
a  riglit  to  summon  all  men  to  him  and  professed  to 
bring  light  and  salvation  to  all  men  —  in  short,  to 
regard  him  as  being  what  the  New  Testament  rep- 
resents him  as  being  —  unless  he  had  not  only 
moral  purity,  but  also  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
things  which  concerned  the  kingdom  that  he  came 
to  establish.  If  he  was  without  such  knowledge,  he 
could  not  have  spoken  with  authority,  nor  have  de- 
manded our  implicit  trust  and  obedience. 

III.  Let  us  now  attempt  to  make  an  application 
of  the  results  to  which  we  have  come.  To  what 
extent  are  the  utterances  of  Christ  and  the  New 
Testament  w'riters  of  binding  force  upon  us  in  our 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament?  Without  attempting 
to  deal  particularly  with  every  question  that  can  be 
raised,   we  may  lay  down  the  following  general  prop- 

7* 


IQQ  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

ositions  as  embodying  principles  which  cannot  reason- 
ably be  gainsaid. 

1.  Fidelity  to  the  Christian  faith  requires  us  to 
assume  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  record,  vehicle, 
or  product  of  a  divine  revelation  preparatory  to  the 
Christian ,  and  fulfilled  in  it.  Everywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  is  this  asserted  or  assumed.  Christ 
affirms  that  he  is  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil, 
the  law  and.  the  prophets  (Matt.  v.  17).  The  com- 
mands of  the  law  are  directly  ascribed  by  him  to 
God  (Matt.  XV.  4—6,  Mark  vii.  8,  13).  It  is  every- 
where declared  or  implied  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
promised  or  foreshadowed  by  the  Old  Testament 
writers  (John  i.  45,  Matt.  xxi.  4,  5,  Mark  i.  1—3, 
X.  47,  xi.  10,  Luke  iii.  4 — 6,  Rom.  i.  2) ;  and  in  gen- 
eral all  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  said  to  be 
prophetic  of  the  Messianic  dispensation  (Luke  xxiv. 
25—27,  44,  John  v.  39,  46,  Acts  xxvi.  22,  Rom.  iii. 
21,  x.  4,  Gal.  iii.  24,  Col.  ii.  17,  Heb.  i.  1,  iii.  5,  viii. 
5,  ix.  8,  9;  x.  1). 

This  is  something  so  obvious  to  every  reader  of 
the  New  Testament  that  it  scarcely  requires  proof. 
Whatever  may  be  the  truth  as  to  the  ethnic  religions, 
they  are  certainly  neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor 
in  the  New  recognized  as  divine  in  any  such  sense 
as  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Mosaic  dispensations.  God 
is  affirmed  to  have  spoken  of  old  time,  not  to  the 
nations  in  general ,  but  to  the  forefathers  of  the 
Hebrews  (Heb.  i.  1).  Whoever  affirms  ^  that  the 
Hebrew  religion  was  merely  one  religion  among 
many,   having  no  more   basis  in  a  special  divine  rev- 

^  As  e.  g.  Kuenen  does  in  his  Religion  of  Israel. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        \Q1 

elation  than  the  others,  can  do  so  only  by  contra- 
dicting the  plain  affirmations  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
He  cannot,  therefore,  do  it  as  a  Christian.  Christianity 
professes  to  be  founded  on  the  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion and  to  be  its  fulfilment.  If  this  profession  is 
false,  then  Christianity  itself  is  false.  Whatever  im- 
perfections may  be  admitted  to  belong  to  the  old  dis- 
pensation (Heb.  viii.  7),  it  is  none  the  less  expressly 
pronounced  a  divine  institution,  the  special  medium 
through  which  God's  gracious  purposes  of  illumina- 
tion and  salvation  were  communicated  to  men. 

Therefore  anything  calling  itself  a  critical  study 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Old  Testament  religion  was  in  no  special 
sense  the  product  of  a  divine  revelation  is  essentially 
unchristian  criticism.  It  is  indeed  easy  enough,  if 
one  will,  to  make  out  a  plausible  case  against  the 
proposition  that  Christ's  person  and  ministry  were  a 
fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  In  form  the 
prophecies  and  the  alleged  fulfilments  are  often  so 
unlike  that,  considered  by  themselves,  they  might 
easily  be  pronounced  to  have  no  special  relation  to 
one  another.  Jesus  was  not  such  a  Messiah  as  the 
Jews  had  been  led  by  their  own  Scriptures  to  expect- 
A  critic,  looking  at  the  subject  entirely  apart  from 
the  allegations  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  can  in  a 
multitude  of  cases  find  a  discrepancy  between  the 
prophecy  and  the  pretended  fulfilment  so  great  as 
apparently  to  vitiate  the  assumption  of  any  pre-ordained 
connection.  And  when  we  come  to  the  ti/pes  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  critic  has  a  still  easier  task.  He 
can  argue  very  plausibly  that  the  assumption  of  a- 
typical  relation  between  persons,  institutions,  or  events 


1Q2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

of  the  Old  Covenant  and  corresponding  ones  in  the 
New  is  a  mere  fancy,  having  no  more  basis  in  the 
things  themselves  than  might  be  affirmed  of  multitudes 
of  other  circumstances  in  human  history.  And  yet 
the  fact  is  that  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  Christ 
as  reported  in  those  Scriptures,  assert  that  there  is 
such  a  typical  relation. 

This,  then,  is  a  crucial  point.  It  may  freely  be 
granted  that  a  man  who  comes  to  the  study  of  the 
Bible  without  faith  in  Christianity,  and  who  compares, 
for  example,  the  ceremonial  law  of  the  Pentateuch 
with  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  might  with 
apparent  reason  argue  that  there  is  no  evident  typical 
connection,  or  even  no  noticeable  resemblance  of  any 
sort,  between  the  two.  He  might  propound  it  as  the 
result  of  criticism  that  it  is  altogether  a  mistake  to 
speak  of  the  law  as  in  any  proper  sense  typical  of 
the  gospel.  And  so  long  as  he  considers  the  question 
uninfluenced  by  the  New  Testament's  own  represen- 
tations, it  will  be  impossible  to  dislodge  him  from 
his  position.  And  even  when  he  is  told  that,  however 
it  may  seem  to  him,  he  certainly  has  the  declarations 
of  the  New  Testament  against  him,  he  can  reply  that 
then  Christ  and  his  followers  were  mistaken  in  their 
typological  notions.  He  might  regard  them  either  as 
deceivers  or  as  fanatics;  but  in  either  case  he  would 
say  that  he  is  not  bound  to  let  his  judgment  be  decid- 
ed by  an  opinion  which  contradicts  his  own  critical 
insight. 

But  the  case  is  far  different  with  the  Christian 
critic.  By  the  very  fact  of  being  a  Christian  he  is 
bound  to  have  respect  to  the  interpretation  which 
Christ  and  his  disciples  put  upon  the  relation  between 


CHKISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ]^Q3 

the  two  covenants.  Even  though  in  some  cases  the 
interpretation  may  seem  to  be  arbitrary  and  far-fetched, 
yet  the  general  fact  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  af- 
firmed a  prophetic  and  typical  relation  of  the  Jewish 
to  the  Christian  dispensation  is  indisputable;  and  this 
fact  must  be  to  the  Christian  scholar  authoritative. 
His  part  is ,  therefore ,  not  to  search  for  points  of 
unlikeness ,  but  for  points  of  likeness.  If  he  is  a 
Christian,  he  must  bow  to  the  judgment  of  his  Master, 
and  learn  to  find  in  the  Old  Testament  institutions  a 
shadow  of  the  things  to  come  (Col.  ii.  17,  Heb.  x.  1). 
The  alternative  is  sharp  and  clear:  either  thus  to  sub- 
mit, or  to  renounce  the  Christian  faith  itself. 

For  this  is  most  certainly  not  a  case  in  which  one 
can  plead  that  Christ  may  have  been  ignorant,  and 
his  view  susceptible  of  correction  by  more  critical 
minds.  His  doctrine  concerning  the  Old  Testament 
as  embodying  a  revelation  foreshadowing  his  own  is 
fundamental  and  all-pervading.  If,  professing  to  come 
as  the  consummate  Revealer  of  the  character  and 
saving  grace  of  God,  he  was  guilty  of  an  enormous 
blunder  in  supposing  himself  to  have  been  prefigured 
and  predicted  in  the  Mosaic  and  prophetic  Scriptures; 
if  he  did  not  know  what  the  fact  was  when  he  always 
spoke  of  the  Israelitish  history  as  one  that  was  under 
special  divine  guidance ;  in  short,  if  he  was  completely 
mistaken  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
—  then  it  is  simply  impossible  to  yield  him  implicit 
confidence  in  regard  to  his  own  professed  revelations. 
In  what  he  taught  concerning  the  Old  Testament  he 
was  professing  to  give  instruction  about  God  and 
God's  dealings  with  his  chosen  people,  about  God's 
commands  and  promises  as  found  in   the   Old  Testa- 


204  CHRIST  AND  CEITICISM. 

ment  writings^  and  about  a  divinely  ordained  prefigu- 
ring of  himself  and  of  his  kingdom  in  those  Scriptures. 
If  in  all  this  he  was  guilty  of  error ;  if  modern  criticism 
is  able  to  show  that  he  did  not  understand  the  subject 
he  was  talking  about,  —  then  it  would  be  hard  to 
see  wherein  his  opinions  and  assertions  can  be 
implicitly  trusted  at  all.  If  he  had  been  left  in 
ignorance  about  the  Old  Testament  and  its  relation 
to  himself,  the  case  would  be  strange  enough;  but 
that  he  should  be  ignorant  and  not  know  himself  to 
be  ignorant;  that  he  should  profess  to  be  able  to 
make  authoritative  disclosures  on  a  subject  on  which 
he  was  ill-informed  or  not  informed  at  all,  —  this 
w^ould  be  something  worse  than  simply  a  limitation 
of  knowledge.  It  would  thoroughly  discredit  him  as 
an  authoritative  messenger  of  God.  If  he  could  so 
err  as  regards  the  past,  why  not  equally,  or  even 
more,  as  regards  the  future?  If  he  thoroughly  mistook 
the  import  of  Jewish  history,  what  guarantee  can  we 
have  that  in  his  general  ethical  and  religious  teachings 
he  is  any  more  to  be  trusted? 

But,  it  may  be  urged,  perhaps  the  error  of  con- 
ception respecting  the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  New  is  merely  that  of  Christ's  disciples,  and 
that  they  have  misrepresented  him  in  their  reports 
of  his  teaching.  Is  it  not  possible  that  they  have, 
even  though  unconsciously,  imputed  to  him  concep- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament  which  came  from  their 
own  Jewish  training?  May  w^e  not  still  assume  that 
Christ  himself  fell  into  no  error  and  took  the  same 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  is  taken  by  the  in- 
telligent modern  scholar  who  finds  in  it  no  real  type 
or  prediction  of  Christianity? 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        |Q5 

This  would  be  a  desperate  shift.  In  the  first 
place,  inasmuch  as  Jesus  was  a  very  different 
Messiah  from  the  one  his  disciples  had  expected,  and 
the  kingdom  which  he  instituted  quite  unlike  the 
kingdom  which  they  had  been  longing  for,  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  they  should  have  come  to  interpret 
the  Old  Testament  as  pointing  forward  to  such  a 
Messianic  kingdom,  unless  Jesus  himself  had  so  inter- 
preted it.  If  by  the  force  of  his  personality  and  the 
impressiveness  of  his  teachings  he  so  won  their  con- 
fidence that  they  could  not  but  trust  him,  then  we 
can  understand  how  they  could  come  to  find  the  Old 
Testament  to  be  full  of  reference  to  him;  otherwise 
not.  But,  in  the  second  place,  if  the  objector's  hy- 
pothesis were  true,  we  should  be  left  without  any  war- 
rant for  assuming  Christ's  infallibility  at  all.  If  his 
disciples  were  so  dull  learners  that  they  continually 
misrepresented  his  deeds  and  words;  if  on  so  im- 
portant a  matter  as  the  one  now  in  question  they 
could  describe  him  as  taking  a  view  utterly  different 
from  the  one  which  he  really  held,  then  it  is  hard 
to  see  what  solid  ground  we  have  for  imputing  any 
unique  authority  to  Christ  at  all.  The  apostles  rep- 
resent him  as  sinless ,  it  is  true ;  but  may  not  this 
conception  of  him  have  been  one  of  their  miscon- 
ceptions? They  declare  him  to  have  been  the  prom- 
ised Messiah;  but  may  not  this  have  been  one  of 
their  mistakes?  They  report  a  great  number  of  his 
alleged  addresses  and  predictions ;  but  how  do  we 
know  whether  we  can  trust  any  of  these  reports?  In 
short,  what  ground  have  we  for  solid  confidence  in 
anything  which  they  relate? 

The  problem  with    which  we   are   now   dealing   is 


IQQ  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

quite  different  from  that  which  is  raised  when  it  is 
alleged  that  Christ's  use  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
different  from  that  of  his  disciples.  It  is  often  said 
that  in  the  Epistles,  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  we  find  fanciful,  rabbinical,  or  allegorical 
uses  of  the  Old  Testament  such  as  Christ  himself 
was  never  guilty  of.  Without  discussing  in  detail 
any  of  these  alleged  instances  of  misapplication  of 
the  Old  Testament,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  even 
if  it  should  be  conceded  that  they  are  real,  they  can 
at  the  most  be  regarded  as  only  instances  of  an 
excessive  application  of  the  principle  of  interpretation 
which  they  had  learned  from  Christ  himself.  He 
taught  them  that  the  Messianic  dispensation  was  foreshad- 
owed in  the  Old  Testament.  Be  it  so  that  in  their 
carrying  out  of  this  lesson  they  sometimes  went  to 
an  extreme,  all  the  more  evident  is  it  that  they  got 
their  general  instructions  from  Christ,  and  that  he 
really  entertained  the  conception  which  is  attributed 
to  him,  viz.,  that  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  was 
predictive  of  him. 

The  foregoing  shows  what  judgment  is  to  be  pro- 
nounced on  such  an  utterance  as  that  of  Kuenen,  ^ 
when  he  says,  ^'For  us  the  Israelitish  is  one  of  those 
[principal]  religions,  nothing  less,  but  also  nothing 
more".  That  the  Old  Testament  claims  for  the 
Hebrew  religion  a  peculiar  divine  origin  and  sanction, 
he  admits;  but  he  reminds  us  that  other  religions 
make  the  same  claim.  With  reference  to  these  others 
he  says  J  ^'It  does  not  follow  from  this  [claim  of 
supernatural    origin]    that     the    description    of   those 

^  Religion  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  p.  5. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ]^Q7 

forms  of  religion  must  start  from  that  belief.  No  one 
expects  or  requires  this  for  Buddhism  or  Islam;  with 
what  right  can  it  be  demanded  with  respect  to  Judaism 
and  Christianity?"^  To  this  naive  question  the 
obyious  answer  is  that  the  right  to  demand  such  an 
assumption  with  respect  to  Judaism  and  Christianity 
is  derived  from  the  fact  that  Christ  himself  made  it 
respecting  both  Judaism  and  his  own  revelation.  One 
can,  if  he  choose,  set  at  nought  Christ's  declarations 
on  this  point ;  but  he  cannot  do  so  as  a  Christian.  A 
critic  of  this  sort  may  be  better  than  his  theory.  He 
may  have  a  Christian  spirit;  but  certain  it  is  that 
such  a  view  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  is  not  a 
Christian  view.  It  cannot  be  held  together  with 
thorough  loyalty  to  Christ. 

2.  It  follows  necessarily  from  the  foregoing  that 
fidelity  to  the  Christian  faith  requires  one  to  hold 
that  the  history  of  the  Israelites  and  their  ancestors, 
as  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  substantially  true. 
Substantially,  I  say ;  for  there  is  no  necessity  of  as- 
suming that  there  is  absolutely  no  error  or  inaccuracy 
in  the  book.  Opinions  may  differ  on  the  question 
whether  the  Old  Testament  is  strictly  infallible, 
without  any  abandonment  of  faith  in  Christ.  But 
one  cannot  look  upon  the  Old  Testament  as  in 
general,  or  very  largely,  unhistorical  —  a  compound 
of  myth,  legend,  fiction,  and  history  —  without  contra- 
dicting Christ's  view  of  the  matter.  All  that  he  and 
his  apostles  have  to  say  respecting  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures implies  that  these  are  regarded  as  recording 
historical  facts.     If,    as   some   think   (though  without 

'  Ibid.  p.  6. 


JQQ  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

conclusive  reasons),  certain  parts  (as  Ruth,  Esther, 
and  Jonah)  are  historical  only  in  form ,  hut  are  in 
fact  fictions  having  a  religious  moral,  such  cases  must 
he  regarded  as  subordinate  and  exceptional,  and  as 
not  examples  of  the  general  character  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  collection  as  a  whole  must  be  histor- 
ical, or  else  these  supposed  fictions  would  he  un- 
intelligible. ' 

That  Christianity  sprang  from  Judaism  is  denied 
by  only  a  few  eccentric  scholars.  Christ  and  his 
disciples  so  conceived  of  the  matter;  and  all  sober 
judges  must  give  assent  to  the  proposition.  But  this 
implies  that  we  know  something  about  Jewish  history; 
and  if  so,  we  derive  our  knowledge  almost  wholly 
from  the  Old  Testament.  Moreover,  as  we  have  seen, 
Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  looked  on  the 
Old  Testament  in  general  as  prophetic  of  Christianity. 
This  holds  true  not  only  of  the  prophetic  writings 
strictly  so  called,  but  of  the  historical  and  poetical 
as  well.  The  faith  of  Abraham,  the  training  of  Jacob, 
tlie  deliverance  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  and  from 
Egypt ,  the  legislation  of  Moses ,  the  chastisement  of 
the  people  for  their  repeated  apostasies,  the  deliverers 
raised  up,  such  as  Barak,  Gideon,  and  Samuel,  the 
history  of  David,  the  vicissitudes  of  Judah  and  Israel 
in  the  monarchical  period,  the  Assyrian  and  the  Baby- 
lonish captivities,  and  the  subsequent  restoration,  — 
these  and  other  events  were  preparatory  to  the  new 
dispensation.  They  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the 
prophecies  and  the  religious  poetry  of  the  Israelites. 

This  assumption  of  a  prophetic  relation  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  New  implies  that  it  was  real  history 
which  was  said  to  be  fulfilled.     If  the  Old  Testament 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        |()9 

is  to  any  considerable  extent  a  compilation  of  un- 
historical  productions,  it  would  have  been  little  less 
than  mockery  for  Jesus  and  his  disciples  to  speak  as 
they  did  of  the  prophetic  and  typical  character  of  the 
Old  Testament.  One  may  indeed  refer,  by  way  of 
illustration,  to  classical  myths  and  fables.  So  long 
as  they  are  understood  to  be  such,  no  harm  can  be 
done  by  such  a  reference.  But  in  the  New  Testament 
the  histories  and  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  represented  as  real  types  and  shadows  of  the 
coming  Messianic  economy.  It  is  repeatedly  insisted 
that  they  must  be  fulfilled.  It  is  asserted  that  there 
is  a  divine  plan  and  purpose  linking  the  two  economies 
together.  This  could  not  be  asserted  if  the  things 
said  to  be  fulfilled  were  unrealities,  fanciful  pictures, 
or  mere  myths  and  legends.  God  is  affirmed  to  be 
the  guiding  spirit  in  both  covenants.  It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  that  according  to  the  divine  idea  there 
could  be  any  necessary  connection  between  fictitious 
stories  and  the  solemn  realities  of  the  Christian 
religion.  There  is  no  escape  from  the  alternative : 
Either  the  Old  Testament  history  is  in  general  a  true 
history,  or  else  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  writers 
labored  under  a  gross  delusion. 

It  may  indeed  be  said  that  all  the  nations  have 
had  their  myths,  and  that  the  myths  have  a  religious 
origin  and  meaning.  Why,  then,  it  is  asked,  should 
we  not  suppose  that  the  Hebrews  also  had  their 
myths?  Well,  very  probably  they  did;  but  when  it 
is  affirmed  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  repository 
of  such  myths,  it  need  only  be  replied  that  from  be- 
ginning to  end  the  Old  Testament  is  destitute  of  a 
mythical  character.     Even  though  here  and  there  one 


IIQ  CHRIST  AND     CRITICISM. 

may  be  able  to  find  wliat  seems  like  a  mythical  feat- 
ure, nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  in  general 
such  features  are  entirely  absent.  It  is  only  by  a 
violent  stretch  of  fancy,  or  by  a  distortion  of  the 
record,  that  the  simple  narratives  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment can  be  construed  as  anything  but  historical. 
Historical  at  any  rate  they  purport  to  be;  as  histor- 
ical they  were  universally  understood  by  the  Jews; 
and  when  Jesus  refers  to  them,  he  refers  to  them  as 
records  of  historical  facts. 

Efforts  are  indeed  made  to  reconcile  the  authority 
of  Christ  with  a  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
assumes  that  it  is  largely  unhistorical.  But  however 
sincere  the  efforts  may  be,  they  cannot  be  successful. 
They  contradict  the  obvious  implications  and  plain 
declarations  of  the  New  Testament ;  they  do  violence 
to  the  Christian's  common  sense.  When,  for  example, 
we  are  asked  to  believe  that  Christ,  in  referring  to 
the  Old  Testament  narratives,  was  only  accommodat- 
ing himself  to  the  popular  notions,  it  can  only  be 
replied  that,  if  this  is  true,  then  he  was  guilty  of 
deceptive  conduct  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  sim- 
plicity, sincerity,  and  boldness  which  are  everywhere 
ascribed  to  him.  He  certainly  made  the  impression 
that  he  believed  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Moreover,  he  implied  his  belief  in  the 
historical  reality  of  Old  Testament  persons  and  events, 
not  only  when  he  might  have  been  imagined  to  be 
accommodating  himself  to  a  prevalent  belief,  but 
equally  when  he  was  opposing  the  prevalent  belief. 
When  he  said  (John  viii.  56),  "Your  father  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  see  my  day;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was 
glad",   he  was   making   an   affirmation  which  contra- 


CHKISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        m 

dieted,  instead  of  confirming,  the  notions  of  his 
hearers ;  so  that  the  implication  that  he  believed 
Abraham  to  be  a  historic  person  cannot  be  shaken 
by  the  supposition  that  he  was  only  accommodating 
himself  to  current  views.  He  was  therefore  in  this 
point  in  disagreement  with  the  modern  critics  ^  who 
think  they  have  discovered  that  Abraham  is  a  purely 
imaginary  personage.  And  this  is  only  one  example 
among  a  multitude. 

The  only  remaining  shift  is  to  suppose  that,  while 
Jesus  himself  regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  an 
authentic  record  of  Jewish  history,  he  was  mistaken 
in  so  thinking.  But,  as  has  been  already  remarked, 
if  he  could  be  in  error  on  so  important  a  matter  as 
that,  then  he  must  have  been  quite  unequal  to  the 
part  which  he  undertook  to  perform.  If  he  could 
think  that  to  be  the  authentic  history  of  a  divine 
revelation  which  was  in  reality  mostly  a  tissue  of 
myth,  legend,  poetic  fancy,  and  wanton  fiction,  then 
it  is  impossible  to  render  to  him  implicit  trust  when 
he  professes  to  give  us  a  new  and  perfect  revelation. 

So  much  in  general.  The  case  is  somewhat  dif- 
ferent when  one  undertakes  to  settle  all  minor  critical 
questions  by  adducing  the  authority  of  Christ.  For 
example,  on  the  question,  whether  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch  as  we  have  it,  one  can  hardly  insist  that 
Christ  has  definitely  pronounced  a  judgment.  Twice 
indeed  (Mark  x.  5,  John  v.  46),  in  reference  to  special 
points,  he  speaks  of  Moses  as  having  written ;  but  he 
nowhere  says  that  Moses  wrote  all  the  five  books 
that  have  borne  his  name.     It  would  even  be  possible 

^  E.g.,  Wellhausen,  GeschUhte  Israels,  p.  332. 


112  CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

in  these  two  cases  to  understand  him  as  only  speaking 
according  to  the  popular  conception,  and  meaning 
only  the  book  commonly  ascribed  to  Moses.  The 
main  critical  question,  however,  is  not,  whether  Moses 
himself  wrote  the  book  of  the  law,  but  whether  be 
gave  the  law.  And  on  this  point  Jesus  seems  to 
have  spoken  explicitly  enough.  He  uniformly  speaks 
of  Moses  as  the  giver  of  the  law,  not  only  in  general, 
as  when  he  says  (John  vii.  19,  cf.  Luke  xvi.  29), 
"Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of 
you  doeth  the  law?"  but  in  particular,  as  when  he 
mentions  certain  laws  as  having  been  given  by  Moses 
(Matt.  viii.  4,  xix.  8,  John  vii.  23).  He  says  that  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat  (Matt,  xxiii.  2), 
thus  recognizing  him  as  the  great  original  lawgiver. 
Entirely  apart,  therefore,  from  the  question,  whether 
the  whole  Pentateuch  was  committed  to  writing  by 
Moses,  we  have  the  same  ground  for  assuming  that 
Christ  regarded  the  legislative  part  of  the  book  as 
Mosaic  that  we  have  for  assuming  that  in  general  he 
regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  authentic.  And  that 
his  disciples  took  the  same  view  needs  no  demon- 
stration. 

The  case  just  considered  is  therefore  different 
from  that  of  a  mere  question  of  literary  authorship ; 
it  is  a  question  of  llistor3^  It  is  not  immaterial 
whether  Moses  or  somebody  living  a  thousand  years 
after  him  originated  the  laws  that  were  generally 
ascribed  to  him;  but  in  the  case  of  a  particular  psalm 
or  prophecy  it  might  have  been  a  matter  of  little 
consequence  whether  the  popular  impression  was  cor- 
rect or  not.  As  to  the  question,  for  example,  con- 
cerning  the   authorship   of  Isaiah  xl— Ixvi.,   there   is 


CHEISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ^I^ 

little  doubt  that  it  was  in  Christ's  time  generally 
supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the  same  Isaiah 
who  prophesied  under  Hezekiah.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment these  chapters  are  frequently  quoted  and  as- 
cribed to  Isaiah  (Matt.  iii.  3,  viii.  17,  xii.  17,  Luke 
iii.  4,  iv.  17,  John  i.  23,  xii.  38,  Acts  viii.  28,  Rom. 
X.  16,  20).  And  hardly  any  stress  can  be  laid  on 
the  fact  that,  when  Jesus  himself  is  introduced  as 
quoting  Isaiah  by  name,  the  quotations  are  all  from 
the  other  part  of  the  book  (Matt.  xiii.  14,  xv.  7, 
Mark  vii.  6),  while,  when  he  does  quote  Isa.  liii.  12 
as  referring  to  himself  (Luke  xxii.  37),  he  does  not 
mention  the  name  of  the  prophet.  The  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  and  presumably  Jesus  himself,  spoke 
as  if  the  chapters  in  question  were  written  by  Isaiah. 
Does  this  fact,  then,  settle  the  question  of  au- 
thorship and  preclude  all  critical  examination  of  it? 
By  no  means.  This  quoting  of  Isa.  xl. — Ixvi.  as 
Isaiah's  prophecy  does  not  necessarily  prove  more 
than  that  the  chapters  in  question  were  currently 
attributed  to  him.  It  simply  served  to  identify  the 
passage  quoted.  For  aught  we  know  the  intelligent 
Jews  of  Christ's  time,  and  Christ  himself,  may  have 
had  doubts  about  the  Isaian  authorship  of  those 
chapters.  But  even  if  they  had,  there  was  no  urgent 
need  of  their  expressing  the  doubt.  The  important 
thing  was  the  matter  of  the  prophecy,  not  the  author 
of  it,  nor  the  time  when  it  was  uttered.  The  passages 
in  question  could  be  quoted  as  prophecies  of  Isaiah, 
just  as  now  passages  from  the  Iliad  or  Odyssey  may 
be  referred  to  as  the  language  of  Homer  even  by  one 
who  doubts  whether  any  one  named  Homer  wrote  any 
part  of  those  books. 

8 


|]^4  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

This  case  is  certainly  materially  different  from 
that  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Old  Testament  itself 
cannot  be  adduced  as  giving  any  express  information 
concerning  the  authorship  of  Isa.  xl. — Ixvi.  This  por- 
tion of  the  book  is  introduced  by  no  title  and  no 
name  of  the  author ;  it  follows  abruptly  the  historical 
chapters  xxxvi. — xxxix.,  so  that  it  is  intrinsically  not 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  writings  of  a  later 
prophet  may  have  become  accidentally  appended  to 
those  of  Isaiah  and  afterwards  mistakenly  attributed 
to  that  prophet.  The  "prima  facie  evidence,  it  is  true, 
is  certainly  in  favor  of  attributing  the  chapters  in 
question  to  Isaiah ;  but  no  stress  is  laid  upon  the 
authorship  in  the  book  itself  or  anywhere  else.  The 
Pentateuchal  laws,  on  the  contrary,  are  expressly  and 
with  almost  superfluous  repetition  ascribed  to  Moses; 
a  detailed  history  of  the  previous  life  of  the  lawgiver 
is  prefixed  to  it ;  the  historic  verity  of  a  large  part  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  involved  in  the  question,  whether 
Moses  was  the  promulgator  of  the  Pentateuchal  legis- 
lation. It  is  a  matter  of  great  historical  consequence 
whether  these  laws  originated  with  Moses  and  were 
the  foundation  of  the  Jewish  church  and  state,  or 
whether  they  sprang  up,  no  one  knows  how  or  when, 
many  hundreds  of  years  later,  after  the  development 
of  the  people  had  passed  its  prime.  The  fact  that 
Christ  and  his  disciples  accepted  the  Old  Testament 
in  general  as  a  history  of  God's  dealings  with  his 
people  is  an  endorsement  of  its  general  truthfulness; 
and  the  history  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  is  too  impor- 
tant a  part  of  the  record  to  be  treated  as  a  matter 
of  indifference.  Both  indirectly,  when  they  speak  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  general  as  of  divine 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        H^ 

authority,  and  directly,  when  they  speak  of  the  law 
as  having  been  given  by  Moses,  they  vouch  for  the 
substantial  truthfulness  of  the  Mosaic  history. 

But  the  general  endorsement  of  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  Old  Testament  on  the  part  of  Christ 
and  the  New  Testament  writers  does  not  preclude  a 
critical  examination  of  particular  parts  and  the  raising 
of  the  question,  whether  there  may  not  be  inaccura- 
cies in  some  of  the  details.  It  does  not  forbid  an 
investigation  into  the  history  of  the  composition  of 
the  Old  Testament  books,  or  a  revision  of  tradition- 
al opinions  as  to  the  authorship  of  them.  It  does  not 
require  us  to  adopt  any  particular  theory  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  writers.  But  it 
does  require  of  Christians  that  they  regard  those 
ostensibly  historical  books  as  really  historical,  and 
not  a  conglomerate  of  myth,  allegory,  poetry,  and 
fiction  in  the  guise  of  history.  Since  Jesus  refers  to 
them  as  records  of  facts,  since  he  treats  the  Old 
Testament  history  as  the  foundation  of  his  own  gospel, 
and  as  a  revelation  of  divine  truth  which  it  was  his 
mission  to  develop  and  fulfil,  faith  in  him  must  in- 
volve faith  in  his  representation  of  the  general  truth- 
fulness of  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  It  is  involved  in  the  foregoing  that  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  Christian  faith  to  hold  that  deceit 
and  fraud  played  an  important  part  in  the  formation 
of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  Faith  in  Christ's  au- 
thority forbids  us  to  believe  that  the  Old  Testament 
consists  largely  or  predominantly  of  the  writings  of 
men  who  deliberately  distorted  and  falsified  history, 
forged  codes  of  laws,  and  succeeded  by  cunning 
trickery  in  imposing  upon  the  Jews,  as  of  divine  ori- 

8* 


■^■^Q  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

gin  and  authority,  what  otherwise  could  never  have 
gained  acceptance  at  all.  A  collection  of  books  con- 
sisting in  great  part  of  such  productions  cannot 
possibly  be  regarded  as  entitled  to  any  peculiar  respect. 
Still  less  can  they  be  held  up  as  of  inspired  author- 
ity. But  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  writers  do 
speak  of  them  as  of  divine  authority.  Therefore  the 
opposing  critical  view  must  be  abandoned,  or  else 
Christ  as  a  religious  teacher  must  be  deemed  un- 
trustworthy. This  is  the  short  and  simple  argument 
which  cannot  be  invalidated  by  smooth  words,  and 
which  in  the  long  run,  in  spite  of  all  mystifications, 
will  commend  itself  to  the  plain  common  sense  of 
Christian  men. 

But  we  are  often  told  that  the  theory  here  re- 
ferred to  is  established,  and  that  therefore  all  fair- 
minded  men  are  bound  to  accept  it  and  to  make  the 
best  of  it.  To  which  it  must  be  answered,  in  the 
first  place,  that,  if  the  theory  is  thoroughly  established, 
then  it  certainly  becomes  a  serious  question  how 
long  faith  in  Christ  as  an  all-sufficient  B,edeemer  can 
maintain  itself.  No  doubt  (as  already  remarked)  one 
may  take  the  ground  that  Christ's  sufficiency  as  a 
spiritual  guide  and  Saviour  does  not  necessarily  in- 
volve his  infallibility  in  regard  to  historical  and  crit- 
ical questions.  And  therefore  it  may  be  that  for  a 
considerable  time  and  to  a  great  extent  a  sincere 
faith  in  Christ  may  co-exist  with  a  theory  of  the  Old 
Testament  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  view  enter- 
tained and  expressed  by  Christ  himself.  But  the  more 
distinctly  one  realizes  what  is  implied  in  this  dis- 
agreement with  Jesus,  the  more  questionable  does  it 
become   how    the    two    beliefs    can    be    permanently 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


117 


maintained  together.  As  we  have  already  had  oc- 
casion to  insist,  what  Christ  thought  and  taught  con- 
cerning the  Jewish  history  and  religion  was  not  a 
matter  of  indifference.  He  claimed  the  same  credence 
when  he  spoke  of  God's  dealing  with  the  Jews  as 
when  he  propounded  his  own  doctrines  and  foretold 
future  things.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  he 
can  be  implicitly  trusted  in  what  he  professes  to  do 
and  to  teach  as  the  founder  of  a  new  dispensation,  if 
he  is  discovered  to  be  entirely  at  fault  as  regards 
the  older  dispensation.  Such  implicit  trust  may  indeed 
be  accorded  to  him,  even  while  his  doctrine  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  rejected;  but  it  cannot  but  be 
that  those  who  try  to  occupy  this  position  will  soon 
come  to  see  that  it  is  an  illogical  and  indefensible 
one.  If  criticism  can  prove  Christ  to  have  been 
mistaken  in  his  conceptions  of  what  God  had  done 
as  to  an  earlier  revelation,  it  may  equally  undertake  to 
correct  him  in  reference  to  what  he  propounds  as  his 
own  revelation.  And  sooner  or  later  this  will  be 
the  result,  if  the  modern  radical  critical  theory  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  to  be  adopted  as  the  true  one. 
Jesus  will  be  esteemed  more  or  less  highly,  but  men 
will  not  trust  him  as  an  infallible  authority  in  anything. 
His  teachings  will  be  more  or  less  admired,  but  will 
be  accepted  only  as  they  meet  the  approval  of  the 
critical  judgment.  What  the  Biblical  records  say  of 
him  will  be  believed  only  in  so  far  as  the  critic 
chooses  to  pronounce  the  record  credible.  In  short, 
Christ  will  cease  to  be  the  Lord  and  Master  that 
he  himself  professes  to  be  (John  xiii.  13).  He  will 
cease  to  be  the  ultimate  object  and  supreme  standard 
of  the  Christian  faith. 


J]^3  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

But  to  the  allegation  that  the  radical  critical 
theory  of  the  Old  Testament  is  established,  it  is  to 
be  replied,  in  the  second  place,  that  it  is  not  estab- 
lished. It  is  a  mere  hypothesis  —  supported,  no  doubt, 
by  many  plausible  arguments  —  but  still  a  mere  hy- 
pothesis, and  one  which,  as  is  shown  by  the  nature 
of  the  case  and  by  the  history  of  the  discussion,  can 
never  become  more  than  a  hypothesis.  It  is  so  rev- 
olutionary in  its  character  that  it  would  be  a  priori 
unlikely  that  it  could  ever  displace  all  opposing  views ; 
and  when  it  is  found  that  its  defenders  in  advocating 
it  create,  to  say  the  least,  as  great  difficulties  as  they 
relieve,  it  is  on  their  part  quite  unwarrantable,  or 
even  an  act  of  effrontery,  to  call  upon  the  Christian 
world  to  make  an  unconditional  surrender  to  their 
theory. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts?  It  does  not  consist 
with  our  purpose  to  discuss  the  subject  at  large;  but 
it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  bestow  a  brief  glance 
on  some  of  the  most  conspicuous  difficulties  of  the 
Kuenen -Wellhausen  hypothesis.  (1).  It  has  to  meet 
at  the  outset  an  immense  counter-presumption.  It 
comes  into  collision  with  the  uniform  declarations  of 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  It  undertakes  to 
reverse  the  opinions  which  have  prevailed  for  thou- 
sands of  years,  and  which  until  recently  no  one  has 
seen  any  adequate  reason  for  giving  up.  An  immense 
burden  of  proof  rests  on  any  one  who  untertakes  to 
overthrow  a  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  so  long 
entertained  by  both  Jews  and  Christians,  and  fully 
endorsed  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  Until 
proved  beyond  controversy,  it  must  be  content  to 
remain  a  hypothesis.     And  it  has  most  certainly  not 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        H^ 

been  proved  to  be  true.  It  has  been  met  at  every 
important  point,  its  assumptions  denied,  its  argu- 
ments refuted,  and  its  fallacies  exposed. 

(2)  It  does  not  predispose  a  genuine  Christian  in  fa- 
vor of  the  revolutionary  hypothesis  that  it  is ,  either 
tacitly  or  avowedly,  founded  upon  a  disbelief  in  the 
supernatural.  Books  which  contain  narratives  of 
miraculous  events  are  for  that  reason  pronounced 
unworthy  of  confidence.  Such  narratives  are  regarded 
as  conclusive  evidence  that  the  books  are  of  late 
origin  recording  legends  as  if  they  were  history.  This 
is  expressly  avowed  by  Kuenen,  and  more  or  less 
distinctly  implied  by  others.  Of  course  the  same 
assumption,  when  logically  carried  out,  must  lead 
to  the  rejection  of  the  New  Testament  miracles  also, 
and  ultimately  to  the  abandonment  of  the  Christian 
faith. 

(3).  Moreover,  the  principal  argument  for  the  new 
doctrine,  however  plausibly  it  may  be  urged,  is  not 
conclusive.  It  is  derived  from  the  absence  of  ref- 
erence to  the  ceremonial  law,  the  apparent  ignorance 
of  it,  and  even  the  constant  violations  of  it,  on  the 
part  of  the  Jewish  people  up  to  the  time  of  the 
captivity.  But  it  is  manifest  that,  even  if  the  absence 
of  all  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  ceremonial  law 
were  as  certain  as  is  alleged,  that  would  still  not  be 
a  decisive  proof  of  the  non-existence  of  the  law.  If 
the  law  had  been  constantly  and  strictly  enforced, 
the  historians  might  still  have  had  little  occasion  to 
make  reference  to  it.  But  is  it  so  unusual  a  thing 
for  a  people  to  disobey  its  own  laws?  It  would  be 
strange  indeed  if  the  Jews  —  a  people  constantly 
denounced  by  their  own   historians  and  prophets  as 


120  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISAC. 

a  stubborn  and  rebellious  people  —  had  always 
carefully  observed  the  requirements  either  of  the 
ceremonial  or  of  the  moral  law.  And  should  it  be 
insisted  that,  if  there  had  been  any  ceremonial  law 
enacted  by  Moses,  it  v/ould  have  been  particularly 
referred  to,  and  the  violation  of  it  expressly  specified 
in  the  historical  and  prophetical  books,  it  may  be 
replied  that,  by  the  same  reasoning,  one  can  prove 
the  Decalogue  not  to  have  been  promulgated  by  Moses. 
For  nowhere  in  the  prophecies^  and  scarcely  anywhere  in 
the  histories^  is  there  any  reference  to  the  Decalogue.  There 
are  references  in  profusion  to  statutes  and  command- 
ments which  have  been  transgressed ;  but  the  references 
are  general,  and  might  be  understood  to  include  the 
ceremonial  law  as  well  as  the  moral. 

(4)  Furthermore,  in  order  to  prove  that  there 
was  such  a  universal  ignorance,  non-observance,  and 
consequently  non-existence ,  of  the  so-called  Mosaic 
law,  it  is  necessary  for  the  critics  to  reject  the  testi- 
mony of  many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  itself. 
They  assume  and  assert  that  the  Deuteronomic  code 
was  unknown  till  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  the  Levit- 
ical  till  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  when  the  book  of 
Joshua  is  adduced  as  proving  that  the  Mosaic  law 
was  known  in  the  period  following  the  exodus,  they 
reply  that  that  book  belongs  to  the  Pentateuch  and  must 
share  its  fate.  When  the  books  of  Chronicles  are 
appealed  to  as  showing  that  the  Jewish  people  before 
the  time  of  Josiah  and  Ezra  knew,  and  more  or  less 
observed,  the  Levitical  law,  we  are  told  that  those 
books  were  a  late  and  mendacious  production  written 
for  the  very  purpose  of  making  the  false  impression 
that  the   newly   concocted  Levitical  code   was  really 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        |21 

of  Mosaic  origin.  Moreover,  when  the  very  historical 
books  (Judges,  Samuel,  Kings)  from  which  the  argu- 
mentum  e  silentio  is  chiefly  derived  are  alleged  to  give 
evidence  that  the  tabernacle  and  ritual  services  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  Moses  were  not  unknown  before 
the  time  of  Josiah,  it  is  replied  that  all  these  books 
have  been  "worked  over",  so  that,  whenever  anything 
in  them  implies  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws,  it  must  be  assumed  to  have  been  interpolated 
after  those  laws  had  been  gotten  up  in  the  times  of 
Josiah  and  Ezra.  When  it  is  shown  that  Deuteronomy 
makes  reference  to  an  earlier  legislation  which  can 
be  none  other  than  the  Levitical,  the  argument  is  met 
by  silence  or  by  an  inadequate  explaining  away  of 
the  alleged  evidence.  When  references  to  the  Mosaic 
law  are  found  in  the  earlier  prophetical  books  ^  it  is 
regarded  as  sufficient  to  reply  that,  the  late  origin  of 
the  law  having  been  demonstrated ,  such  references 
can  have  no  weight  with  the  critic.  ^  In  a  clear  case, 
as  when  1  Kings  xi.  2  expressly  quotes  Deut.  xvii.  17, 
the  passage  is  simply  declared  to  be  an  interpolation.  The 
same  is  done,  when  1  Sam.  ii.  22  and  1  Kings  viii.  4  make 
distinct  mention  of  the  tabernacle  as  a  historical  fact, 
contrary  to  the  critical  assumption  that  there  was 
no  Mosaic  tabernacle.  When  by  a  strained  exegesis 
the  most  obvious  meaning  of  a  pasage  can  be  explain- 
ed away,  this  is  done,  as  in  the  case  of  Hos.  viii.  12, 
which  speaks  of  an  extensive  written  law,  and  2  Kings 
xii.  16,    Hos.  iv.  8,    which    imply    that    sin-offerings 

^  Says  Wellhausen  (Geschichte  Israels,  p.  11),  "Passages  out 
of  Amos  and  Hosea  may  be  adduced  which  are  supposed  to  show 
acquaintance  with  the  Code  of  the  Priests ;  upon  him,  however,  who 
holds  them  to  be  earlier  than  it  they  can  make  no  impression." 


122  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

were  known  before  the  time  of  Ezekiel.  Psalm  xl., 
which  bears  the  same  testimony  (verse  6),  is  trans- 
ported into  the  post-exilic  period.  And  the  same  is 
done  with  the  book  of  Joel  (though  it  has  always 
been  regarded  as  one  of  the  oldest  of  the  prophetical 
books)  because  Joel  is  observed  to  speak  respect- 
fully of  the  priests,  and  bewails  the  famine  especially 
because  it  threatens  to  cut  off  the  meal-offering  and  the 
drink-offering  (i.  13,  ii.  14,  17).  Why  the  later  inter- 
polators and  redactors,  if  they  had  such  free  range 
among  the  earlier  books  and  were  so  zealously  anxious 
to  furnish  them  with  references  to  the  Levitical  code, 
did  not  make  more  thorough  work  with  their  recon- 
structions, does  not  appear,  '     But  whatever  is  found 

^  Since  the  foregoing  was  written,  the  thought  here  rudi- 
mentally  expressed  has  been  developed  with  much  force,  though 
still  very  succinctly,  by  Henry  Hayman  D.  D.,  who,  in  an  article 
(in  the  New  York  Independent  of  April  28,  1892)  on  Internal 
Difficulties  of  the  New  Theory  of  the  Pentateuch,  urges  against 
the  critical  doctrine  of  the  Levitical  Code  the  obvious  fact  that 
a  code  is  precisely  what  the  legislation  in  question  is  not.  It 
treats  the  same  topic  in  various  places.  What  is  laid  down  in 
one  section  is  supplemented  in  another  at  a  distance  from  it, 
or  is  repeated  with  no  essential  change,  or  is  replaced  by 
something  different,  "This  treatment  by  repetitions,  digressions, 
dismemberments,  and  insertions  is  not  the  exception  so  much 
as  the  rule,  and  gives  the  Mosaic  legislation  the  interspersed 
and  fragmentary  character  of  a  painted  window,  broken  and 
patched  together  without  design."  If  Ezra  or  priests  of  the 
exilic  or  post-exilic  period  regarded  themselves  as  authorized  to 
codify  and  complete  the  earlier  legislation,  what  possible  reason 
could  they  have  had  for  leaving  it  in  this  disjointed,  confused, 
and  imcodified  state?  As  Dr.  Hayman  cogently  puts  the  case, 
"Can  any  one  conceive  a  priestly  conclave,  with  nothing  else  to 
do,  and  ample  time  in  which  to  do  it,  turning  out  such  a  piece 
of  work  fts  this  for  the  practical  guidance  of  a  restored  community  ?" 


CHRISTIA]!?  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CKITICISM.        ;|^23 

in  them  which  conflicts  with  the  critical  theory  is 
got  out  of  the  way  by  hook  or  by  crook.  The  argu- 
ment, reduced  to  a  simple  form  is  this :  The  Levitical 
code  must  be  of  post-exilic  origin ,  because  there  is 
no  evidence  of  its  existence  in  the  pre-exilic  books. 
Therefore  whenever  evidences  of  the  existence  of  the 
Levitical  law  are  found  in  the  pre-exilic  books,  they 
must  be  pronounced  interpolations  of  a  later  time ! 
This  may  be  astute  criticism,  bat  it  can  hardly  pass 
for  sound  logic. 

(6).  But  this  is  not  all.  We  are  asked  to  believe 
that  whole  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed 
by  cunning  forgers,  who  took  the  greatest  pains  to 
give  their  productions  the  coloring  of  a  remote  time, 
including  the  reproduction  of  the  ancient  phraseology 
and  type  of  doctrine,  and  a  minute  conformity  to  the 
local  and  historical  circumstances  of  that  time,  so  that 
it  is  difficult  for  the  acutest  critics  to  detect  any 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  alleged  late  origin.  It  is 
true,  such  evidence  is  diligently  looked  for,  and  much 
is  found  which ,  in  appearance ,  lends  color  to  the 
critical  theory.  Thus,  for  example ^  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  there  are  in  the  introductory  narrative 
chapters  certain  explanatory  observations  which  seem 
to  interrupt  the  connection  of  Moses'  discourse  —  ob- 
servations such  as  now-a-days  would  be  put  into  the 
form  of  footnotes.  And  they  seem,  moreover,  to  have 
been  written  by  persons  to  whom  the  events  com- 
mented on  were  somewhat  distant.  Instances  of  them 
are  found  in  ii.  10—12,  20-23,  iii.  9—11,  13,  14. 
Now  respecting  such  passages  it  is  proper  to  institute 
a  critical  inquiry.  Three  suppositions  are  possible: 
either  (i)    that    the    passages,    notwithstanding    their 


124  CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

apparently  late  origin,  were  written  by  Moses,  or  some 
other  very  early  writer,  who  also  wrote  the  rest  of 
the  book ;  or  (ii)  that  they  are  editorial  annotations 
of  a  later  period  than  that  of  the  book  in  general; 
or  (iii)  that  the  whole  book  is  proved  to  be  of  late 
origin  by  the  fact  that  these  passages  must  have  been 
written  long  after  the  time  of  Moses.  The  critical 
theory  under  consideration  assumes  that  only  the 
third  supposition  is  possible.  But  why  not  the 
second?  Certainly  not  because  it  is  a  critical  canon 
that  every  book  of  the  Bible  must  be  assumed  to 
have  remained  forever  in  precisely  the  form  which 
it  first  had.  The  critics  who  are  so  ready  to  postu- 
late interpolations  whenever  they  find  it  convenient, 
and  profess  to  discover  evidences  of  numerous  writ- 
ings pieced  together,  single  words  and  phrases  insert- 
ed here  and  there ,  passages  transposed  and  passages 
added  or  omitted  —  such  critics  surely  cannot  find 
it  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  in  the  cases  above 
mentioned  a  few  editorial  observations  have  found 
their  way  into  the  text  of  Deuteronomy.  Which  is 
intrinsically  most  probable  —  that  editorial  additions 
should  be  inserted  in  an  ancient  book  for  the  sake 
of  explanation,  or  adaptation  to  modern  circumstances? 
or  that  interpolations  should  be  made  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  falsify  history  and  to  deceive  the 
reader  with  regard  to  the  date  of  the  book?  Or  must 
it  be  laid  down  as  a  critical  canon,  that  the  hypoth- 
esis of  interpolations  and  redactions  may  be  freely 
resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  overthrowing  the  tra- 
ditional view,  but  never  for  the  purpose  oi  maintaining  it? 
Moreover,  the  theory  in  question  not  only  holds 
a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  work  of 


CHRISTIAN   FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ]^25 

forgers,  but  it  assumes  a  subtlety  of  deception  on  the 
part  of  the  writers  which  becomes  at  times  absolutely 
startling.  Not  only  is  a  general  historical  setting 
supposed  to  have  been  invented  for  the  forged  legis- 
lation; itot  only,  for  example,  are  the  Levitical  laws 
uniformly  worded  as  if  designed  for  life  in  an  en- 
campment; but  episodes  in  the  history  are  assumed 
to  have  been  invented  for  the  sole  purpose,  as  it 
would  seem ,  of  blinding  the  reader  more  effectually 
to  the  true  character  of  the  book.  Thus  the  story 
(Lev.  X.  16 — 20)  about  Moses  searching  for  the  goat 
of  the  sin-offering  must,  according  to  the  theory,  have 
been  a  wanton  and  apparently  useless  invention,  but 
designed  (if  it  had  any  design)  the  more  thoroughly 
to  give  to  the  Levitical  legislation  the  aspect  of  having 
been  Mosaic.  So  the  story  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
Abiram  (Num.  xvi.)  must  be  regarded  as  a  fiction 
without  the  least  shadow  of  foundation.  If  the  criti- 
cal theory  concerning  the  tabernacle  and  the  offering 
of  incense  is  true,  this  event  could  not  have  happened, 
and  the  invention  can  only  be  attributed  to  a  sort  of 
"superfluity  of  naughtiness"  on  the  part  of  the  author 
of  the  book.^ 

^  On  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith's  "legal  fiction"  theory  of 
the  origin  of  the  Levitical  laws,  what  shall  be  said  of  these 
and  other  such  stories?  He  tells  us  {The  Old  Testament  in  the 
Jewish  Church,  p.  387)  that,  when  the  laws  were  first  promul- 
gated, they  were  presented  as  ordinances  of  Moses,  but  that 
"every  one  knew  that  they  were  not  so".  What,  then,  one  may 
well  ask,  did  the  people  think  about  these  stories?  If  the  legis- 
lation was  understood  to  be  ascribed  to  Moses  only  as  a  mere 
form  —  as  a  "legal  fiction"  —  then  these  stories  which  belonged 
to  the  same  Priests'  Code  must,  it  would  seem,  have  been  also 
understood  to  be  fictions  —  not  "legal  fictions",  but  meaningless, 


2^26  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM, 

(6).  Furthermore,  the  theory  in  question  runs  into 
self-contradiction  in  undertaking  to  soften  down  the 
appearance  of  attributing  downright  deception  to  the 
authors  of  the  Deuteronomic  and  Levitical  legislation 
by  saying  that  they  only  meant  that  what  they  pro- 
mulgated was  in  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  law,  or  was 
a  logical  development  of  the  germ  which  was  found 
in  the  laws  actually  given  by  Moses.  ^  This  might  be 
conceded  to  have  some  weight,  if  the  critics  did  not 
with  one  breath  virtually  deny  what  they  affirm  with 
the  other.  For  they  tell  us  that  Moses  gave  no  laws 
but  the  Decalogue,  and  perhaps  not  even  that.  The 
so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.  22  — xxiii.  19), 
called  the  earliest  of  the  groups  of  laws,  is  ascribed 
to  a  time  after  the  Jews  had  become  settled  in  Pal- 
estine. ^  If,  then ,  Moses  can  at  the  most  be  held 
responsible  only  for  the  Decalogue^  in  what  sense  can 
the  ritual  law  be  said  to  have  been  developed  out  of 
that?  On  the  contrary,  we  are  repeatedly  told  that 
the  prophets  were  constantly  enforcing  the  Decalogue 
as  over  against  the  sacrificial  rites  of  their  hearers. 
According  to  the  representations  of  the   critics    who 

senseless,  useless  fictions,  not  having  even  the  poor  merit,  which 
other  critics  might  ascribe  to  them,  of  serving  the  better  to  deceive 
the  people  into  the  belief  that  the  laws  were  really  Mosaic,  but 
false  stories  conceived  in  the  purest  wantonness  for  no  intelli- 
gible purpose  whatever.  And  whether  one  adopts  the  "legal 
fiction"  theory  or  some  other,  the  story  of  Korah,  if  a  late  in- 
vention, must  have  been  a  gratuitous  insult  to  the  descendants 
of  Korah ,  who  had  attained  an  honorable  place  in  the  later 
Jewish  Church. 

1  W.  R.  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  etc.  p.  309. 

2  Wellhausen,  Qeschichte,  p.  410. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ^27 

thus  put  the  two  things  into  opposition  one  to  another, 
a  development  of  the  ritual  law  out  of  the  Decalogue 
would  seem  very  much  like  a  development  of  carbon 
out  of  hydrogen. 

But  we  are  assured  ^  that  ''in  Israel  all  law  was 
held  to  be  derived  from  the  teaching  of  Moses." 
Indeed;  but  what  reason  have  we  for  such  an  assump- 
tion? Everything  in  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  and  the 
following  books  which  ascribes  the  Pentateuchal  laws 
to  Moses  is  declared  to  be  a  fiction  of  the  times  of 
Josiah  or  later.  Even  the  very  personality  of  Moses, 
we  are  told,  is  dim.  ^  And  certainly  it  is  true  that 
in  the  prophetic  books  (the  only  ones  in  which  the 
critics  have  much  confidence)  Moses  is  very  seldom 
mentioned  at  all;  and  in  the  few  cases  in  which  he 
is  mentioned  (except  in  Daniel  and  Malachi)  he  is 
not  spoken  of  as  a  lawgiver,  but  only  as  a  leader 
(Isa.  Ixiii.  11,  12,  Jer.  xv.  1,  Mic.  vi.  4).  This  nega- 
tive evidence  of  the  prophets  as  regards  the  Mosaic 
law  is  in  other  relations  much  insisted  on.  If  now, 
as  we  are  asked  to  believe,  from  the  time  of  Moses 
till  that  of  Josiah  the  law  of  Moses  is  mentioned  only 
in  spurious  passages  and  seems  to  have  been  unknown, 
how  comes  it  that  all  of  a  sudden ,  at  the  time  of 
the  exile  or  after,  it  was  found  necessary  to  ascribe 
all  legislation  to  this  same  Moses? 

But  the  statement  that  all  laws  were  held  to  be 
derived  from  the  teachings  of  Moses  is  simply  not 
true.  The  legislation  of  David  and  Solomon  and  the 
other    kings,    even    when    it    related    to    ceremonial 


^  W.  R.  Smith,  ibid.  p.  385. 

^  C.  H.  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity^  p.  25. 


;j^28  CHKIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

matters,  is  nowhere  said  to  be  derived  from  Moses. 
Moreover,  if  it  was  so  much  a  matter  of  course  that 
the  Deuteronomic  and  Levitical  codes  should  be  in 
form  ascribed  to  Moses,  what  shall  be  said  of  Eze- 
kiel,  who  is  alleged  to  have  undertaken  to  introduce 
an  elaborate  ritual  which  was  new  for  the  most  part 
to  the  Jews  of  his  time,  and  was  the  forerunner  of  the 
post-exilic  Levitical  code?  He  does  not  ascribe  his 
laws  to  Moses.  So  then  this  grand  principle,  that 
all  legislation  had  to  be  in  form  attributed  to  Moses, 
breaks  down  in  the  most  conspicuous  instance.  Is  it 
said  that  Ezekiel  spoke  with  the  authority  of  a  proph- 
et —  as  one,  therefore,  who  had  no  need  of  leaning 
upon  any  preceding  human  authority?  Then  we  may 
ask,  why  did  not  some  earlier  prophet  undertake  the 
business  of  legislation  as  well  as  Ezekiel?  Why  was 
it  necessary  for  the  Deuteronomic  code  to  be  smuggled 
in  by  a  trick,  if  a  prophet  speaking  by  divine  author- 
ity might  boldly  have  promulgated  it  as  a  new  di- 
vine revelation?  Or  if,  as  some  suppose,  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  was  a  real  prophet,  say,  Jeremiah, 
why  should  he,  more  than  his  contemporary  Ezekiel, 
have  hidden  himself  behind  the  name  of  Moses,  espec- 
ially when  (if  the  critics  are  right)  Moses  as  a  legis- 
lator had  been  previously  as  good  as  unknown?  To 
such  questions  the  critical  theory  has  no  satisfactory 
answer. 

(7).  The  new  theory  runs  into  difficulties  and  in- 
consistencies in  its  representations  of  the  prophets 
and  of  their  testimony  concerning  the  Mosaic  law. 
In  the  first  place,  the  critics  give  no  adequate  ex- 
planation of  the  rise  of  such  a  class  of  men  as  the 
prophets    who  flourished  between  800  and  600  B.  0. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        j^gg 

On  their  hypothesis  of  a  slow  development  of  religious 
life  and  belief  —  a  development  which,  we  are  told, 
preceded  and  produced  nearly  or  quite  all  of  the 
ivritings  of  the  Old  Testament  —  it  is  difficult  to  see 
bow  the  very  first  authentic  utterances  of  the  Jewish 
religious  mind  could  have  been  of  the  elevated  sort 
which  is  found  in  the  prophetical  books.  The  very 
scholars  who  tell  us  that  the  Jewish  religion  could 
not  have  produced  the  Psalms  till  during  or  after 
the  captivity  admit  the  genuineness  of  the  propheti- 
cal writings,  which  are  saturated  with  quite  as  lofty, 
pure,  and  fervent  a  religious  spirit  as  that  of  the 
best  of  the  Psalms.  One  could  not  well  conceive  of 
a  more  glaring  self-contradiction  than  that  which  is 
involved  in  conceding,  on  the  one  hand,  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  prophetical  books,  and  in  contending, 
on  the  other,  that  the  Jews  could  not  have  developed 
the  sacrificial  law  and  religious  poetry  till  centuries 
afterwards.  It  is  like  making  a  process  of  develop- 
ment begin  at  the  end. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  the  testimony  of  the  proph- 
ets as  to  the  Mosaic  legislation  is  used  in  a  parti- 
san way.  It  is  assumed  that,  when  the  prophetical 
school  arose,  the  people  had  been  living  without  any 
religious  legislation  except  perhaps  the  Decalogue. 
But  the  argumentum  e  silentio  weighs  as  heavily  against 
the  existence  of  this  law  as  against  that  of  any  other. 
It  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned  by  the  prophets, 
although,  considermg  the  general  tenor  of  the  pro- 
phetic utterances,  it  would  seem  as  if  it  would  have 
been  much  more  natural  for  the  prophets  to  refer  to 
that  than  to  the  ceremonial  law.  Obviously  what 
they  found  it  necessary  to  contend  against  was  moral 

9 


]^30  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

obliquity  combined  with  superstitious  trust  in  sacri- 
ficial offerings.  Against  this  error  they  hurled  their 
most  vehement  denunciations.  They  had,  therefore, 
no  occasion  to  lay  stress  on  the  observance  of  the 
ceremonial  law;  on  the  contrary,  the  abuse  of  the 
sjnrit  of  the  ritual  was  so  gross  that  they  were^ 
tempted  into  the  use  of  the  strongest  language  in 
the  condemnation  of  ritual  formalism,  so  that  Jere- 
miah (vii.  22),  wishing  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  ethical  uprightness  as  compared  with  ceremonial 
observances,  goes  so  far  as  to  make  God  say,  ^'I  spake 
not  unto  your  fathers  nor  commanded  them,  in  the 
day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypty 
concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices." 

This  language  of  passionate  rhetoric  is  now  seized 
upon  by   the   critics  as   if  it   were  intended  to  be  a^ 
cool   historic  statement.     But  if  this  negative  state- 
ment is  to  be  taken  so  literally,  then  we  should  cer- 
tainly take  no   less   literally    the  positive    statement 
(Jer.  xxxiv.  12 — 14),  that  the  law  concerning  the  re- 
demption of  Hebrew  servants  was  given  at  the  time  of 
the  exodus.     Moreover,   one  cannot  account  for  this 
statement  by  the    assumption  that   it  is  a  rhetorical 
paradox,   or  indeed  in  any  way  except  by  supposing 
that  Jeremiah  really  believed  that  he  was  stating  an 
undeniable   fact.     It   makes    no    material    difference 
whether  he  had  in  mind  Ex.  xxi.  2  or  Deut.  xv.  12; 
for  according  to  the  radical  critics  neither  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (in  which  the  first   of  the  passages 
stands)   nor   the    Deuteronomic    code   was   given    by 
Moses.     Jeremiah's  language,    however,  much  more 
nearly  resembles   the  passage  in   Deuteronomy  than 
the  other.    If  he  quoted  from  the  Deuteronomic  law, 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ]^3|^ 

then  he  certainly  represents  it  as  Mosaic.  But  if  he 
did  so,  being  deceived  as  everybody  else  is  alleged 
to  have  been  respecting  the  fact,  and  really  supposed 
Deuteronomy  to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  then  he 
must  have  supposed  also  that  the  ceremonial  ordinances 
in  the  same  hook  were  given  hij  Moses;  and  then  what 
becomes  of  the  confident  inference  which  the  critics 
derive  from  Jer.  vii.  22  that,  according  to  the  proph- 
et, Moses  issued  no  laws  concerning  burnt-offerings 
and  sacrifices?  The  case  is  not  materially  altered,  if 
we  suppose  him  to  have  referred  to  the  passage  in 
Exodus;  for  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx. 
24 — 26,  xxiii.  18)  also  contains  commandments  con- 
cerning burnt- offerings  and  sacrifices.  On  the  ^'legal 
fiction"  theory  of  the  so-called  Mosaic  legislation  the 
case  is,  if  anything,  still  worse.  We  are  asked  to 
believe  that  Jeremiah,  though  knowing  that  these  laws 
were  not  Mosaic,  yet  deliberately  declares  that  they 
were  enacted  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.  But  in 
either  case  the  instance  under  consideration  presents 
a  good  illustration  of  the  one-sidedness  of  a  criticism 
which  eagerly  seizes  upon  one  prophetic  utterance 
concerning  the  Mosaic  ordinances  as  unquestionably 
and  literally  true,  because  it  confirms  the  critical 
hypothesis,  but  ignores  the  other,  because  it  looks 
the  other  way. 

The  fact  is  that,  though  the  earlier  prophets  say 
little  or  nothing  about  the  law  of  Moses,  they  say  a 
great  deal  about  the  law  of  Jeliovah,  which  the  people 
are  accused  of  having  neglected  and  disobeyed  (Isa. 
V.  24,  xxiv.  5,  xlii.  24,  Jer.  xvi.  11,  xliv.  10,  Ezek. 
xxii,  26,  Hos.  iv.  6,  etc.).  The  famous  passage  in 
which  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  31 — 33)  tells  of  the  new  cov- 

9* 


1^2  CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

venant  which  is  to  be  made,  when  the  law  of  God 
is  to  be  written  on  the  heart  of  his  people,  itself 
contrasts  this  with  the  covenant  which  was  made  at 
the  time  of  the  exodus.  But  elsewhere  also  reference 
is  made  to  a  divine  law  given  at  the  same  time; 
e.g.,  Jer.xi.  1—5,  xxxii.  20—23,  Ezek.  xx.  10—13.  It  is 
worth  noting  that  in  the  first  of  these  passages  the 
prophet  (verse  4)  makes  a  formal  quotation,  the  orig- 
inal of  which  seems  to  be  Lev.  xxvi.  3,  12,  that  is, 
a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  assumed  by  the  critical 
theory  to  have  been  promulgated  after  the  time  of 
Jeremiah.  Nowhere  else  can  we  find  in  the  Penta- 
teuch the  condition  of  obedience  to  the  divine  com- 
mandments connected  with  the  promise,  "Ye  shall  be 
my  people,  and  I  will  be  your  God." 

This  last  mentioned  passage,  and  still  more  the 
one  (Jer.  xxxiv.  12 — 14)  previously  adduced,  show 
that,  when  the  prophet  refers  to  the  legislation  of 
the  time  of  the  exodus,  he  does  not  have  in  mind 
merely  the  law  of  the  two  tables.  We  have  in  short 
conclusive  proof  that  a  considerable  body  of  laws  is 
assumed  by  tbe  prophets  to  have  been  given  at  the 
time  of  the  exodus.  And  since  reference  is  made  to 
groups  of  laws  in  which  there  are  directions  concern- 
ing sacrifices ,  the  inference  is  inevitable  that  the 
prophets  did  assume  that  ceremonial  laws  were  enacted 
at  the  time  of  the  exodus,  that  is,  by  Moses.  When 
now  it  is  urged  that  the  prophets  everywhere  de- 
nounce the  practice  of  offering  sacrifices,  and  that 
Jeremiah  in  the  passage  (vii.  22)  above  mentioned 
expressly  declares  that  no  ceremonial  laws  were  given 
by  Moses,  the  answer  is  simple:  These  strong  expres- 
sions  are  easily  explained  by  the  prevalence  of  the 


CHBISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ^^33 

abuse  of  sacrificial  rites.  But  what  furnishes  a  de- 
monstrative proof  that  the  prophets  cannot  have 
meant  to  inveigh  against  all  ritual  service  as  such  is 
the  fact  that  they  represent  the  ideal  future  state  as  one 
in  tvhich  sacrificial  rites  are  to  be  observed.  Thus 
Jeremiah  himself  (xvii.  26)  tells  of  the  good  time 
coming  when  "they  shall  come  from  the  cities  of 
Judah  and  from  the  places  round  about  Jerusalem, 
and  from  the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  from  the  low- 
land, and  from  the  mountains,  and  from  the  South, 
bringing  burnt-offerings,  and  sacrifices,  and  oblations, 
and  frankincense,  and  bringing  sacrifices  of  thanks- 
giving, unto  the  house  of  Jehovah."  Still  more  em- 
phatical  to  the  same  effect  is  Jer.  xxxiii.  17 — 22.  So 
also  Isa.  xix.  21,  xliii.  23,  24,  Ivi.  7,  Ixvi.  21—23, 
Zech.  xiv.  16 — ^21,  Zeph.  iii.  10,  Hos.  iii.  4,  5.  In 
Hos.  ix.  4,  5  it  is  represented  as  a  chastisement 
when  sacrifices  shall  not  be  rendered  or  accepted.. 
Nowhere  do  the  prophets  speak  of  an  ideal  future  as 
characterized  by  the  absence  of  sacrifices,  while  they 
repeatedly  speak  of  such  a  future  as  characterized 
by  their  presence.  What  right  have  we,  then,  when 
they  refer  in  general  terms  to  the  law  of  Jehovah 
given  at  the  inauguration  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
people,  to  assume  that  they  mean  only  a  moral  law 
to  the  exclusion  of  a  ceremonial  one? 

This  point  is  all  the  more  forcible,  inasmuch  as 
the  actual  ideal  future  was  to  be  characterized  by 
precisely  this  absence  of  sacrificial  rites.  If  the  proph- 
ets had  been  gifted  with  enough  far-sightedness,  they 
would  have  portrayed  the  future  differently.  The 
fact  that  they  wrote  as  they  did,  and  that  in  their 
highest   conceptions   of  the   church   of  the   future  it 


134  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

was  to  retain  sacrifices  and  oblations ,  shows  con- 
clusively that  what  they  denounce  in  the  sacrifices 
of  their  countrymen  is  not  sacrifice  as  such,  but  the 
wicked  and  superstitious  spirit  in  which  the  sacrifices 
are  offered.  Moreover,  since  their  ideal  church  is 
conceived  as  one  in  which  sacrifices  are  offered,  it  is 
an  inevitable  inference  that  they  must  have  regarded 
the  old  law  of  Jehovah  as  prescribing  such  sacrifices. 
No  doubt,  they  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  the  need 
of  moral  uprightness,  because  in  that  particular  they 
found  the  greatest  lack.  But  if,  when  they  denounced 
sacrificial  rites,  they  meant  to  assert  or  imply  that 
the  divine  law  already  given  had  nothing  to  say  about 
them,  then  it  is  simply  inconceivable  that  they  should 
have  pictured  to  themselves  the  more  perfect  law  of 
the  time  to  come  as  enjoining  them. 

(8).  What  has  just  been  said  suggests  another 
difficulty  in  the  radical  hypothesis  in  question :  it  has 
no  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  sacri- 
ficial code.  Sacrifices  must  of  course  be  admitted  to 
have  been  in  fact  offered  by  the  Jewish  people  long 
before  the  time  of  the  exile.  The  prophets  in  de- 
nouncing them  could  not  have  been  fighting  a  crea- 
tion of  their  own  fancy.  How,  then,  are  the  Levitical 
sacrifices  conceived  by  the  representatives  of  the 
extreme  critical  theory?  They  must  make  their  choice 
between  two  possible  views. 

(i).  The  sacrifices  may  be  regarded  as  purely 
superstitious  rites,  neither  commanded  by  God  nor 
pleasing  to  him.  But  in  this  case  an  institution  which 
God,  through  the  prophets,  is  alleged  to  have  con- 
demned must  be  held  to  be  that  towards  which  the 
religious  drift  of  the  nation  was  more  and  more  tend- 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        J 35 

ing.  And  therefore  the  development  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  since  the  evolution  of  the  sacrificial  system 
went  on,  until  after  the  exile  it  attained  the  highest 
sanction  and  authority,  must  have  heen  a  development 
dotmwards.  This,  however,  is  squarely  in  contradiction 
of  the  evolutionary  conception  which  underlies  the 
critical  doctrine  under  consideration.  The  very  schol- 
ars who  regard  the  sacrificial  code  as  a  product  of 
the  exilic  or  post-exilic  period  argue  (though  without 
a  shadow  of  historical  evidence)  that  the  Psalms  must 
have  been  the  product  of  the  same  or  a  later  time, 
on  the  ground  that  the  religious  development  of  the 
previous  centuries  was  not  adequate  to  their  pro- 
duction. But  surely  one  cannot  be  allowed  to  assume 
an  upward  progress  when  discussing  the  Psalter,  and 
a  downward  progress  when  discussing  the  ritual. 

(ii).  Or  the  sacrificial  rites  may  be  regarded  as 
really  commanded  or  sanctioned  by  God.  But  in 
this  case  we  are  bound  to  have  some  conception  of 
the  meaning  and  use  of  the  ritual.  What  was  it  for? 
Was  it  merely  a  form  required  for  form's  sake? 
Merely  a  surrender  and  destruction  of  property  for 
the  sake  of  the  loss  sufi'ered?  If  so,  it  is  no  wonder 
that  it  led  to  Pharisaism  of  the  worst  sort.  Nothing 
could  have  been  better  fitted  to  develop  the  spirit  of 
formalism  and  self-righteousness  than  to  be  made  to 
understand  that  there  was  something  highly  meri- 
torious in  the  performance  of  sacrificial  rites  merely  as 
an  opus  operatum.  But  this  is  of  course  an  inadmissible 
theory  of  the  use  of  the  ritual.  It  must  have  had  a 
significance.  And  that  it  had  a  significance^  even  the 
very  prophets  themselves  imply  in  the  figures  which 
they   draw  from   the  ritual   service.      Sacrifices  were 


236  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

an  expression  of  praise,  consecration,  and  penitence. 
They  had  a  language  adapted  to  a  primitive  state  of 
religious  development.  But  if  we  must  thus  conceive 
of  their  meaning,  then  what  are  we  to  think  of  a 
divine  plan  which  begins  with  nothing  but  a  code  of 
morals,  and  ends  after  a  thousand  years  with  a  system 
of  sacrificial  rites?  The  symbolic  language  of  the 
offerings  could  be  understood  only  as  they  accompanied 
the  moral  law.  They  were  needed,  if  at  all,  from 
the  very  beginning  of  the  religious  development  of 
the  people.  To  suppose  that  God  at  first  gave  a 
moral  law,  and  then  waited  a  thousand  years  before 
he  gave  the  ritual,  requires  us  to  assume  that,  after 
denouncing  as  religious  sacrilege  the  sacrifices  which 
the  people  had  in  their  own  gropings  instituted,  God 
at  last  instituted  as  a  religious  duty  what  was  for 
substance  the  same  thing! 

If  there  was  any  need  of  a  symbolic  language  to 
set  forth  the  need  of  thanksgiving,  consecration,  and 
expiation,  it  was  surely  needed  at  the  beginning, 
rather  than  near  the  end,  of  the  Jewish  national 
existence.  If  the  sacrificial  rites  were  a  part  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  it  is  quite  intelligible  that  they 
might  have  been  more  or  less  abused  and  misunder- 
stood, or  loosely  observed ,  and  that  after  the  great 
national  misfortune  they  might  have  been  more  care- 
fully performed  according  to  the  terms  of  the  ritual 
law.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how  an  exagger- 
ated notion  of  the  value  of  punctilious  observance 
of  the  law  may  have  grown  up.  But  if  there  was 
originally  no  such  ritual  legislation  at  all,  it  is  simply 
inexplicable  that  it  should  have  been  introduced,  by 
any  one  inspired  of  God,  at  the  late  time  assigned  to 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        J 37 

it  by  the  radical  critics.  The  moral  and  ceremonial 
laws  belonged  together,  if  the  ceremonial  had  any 
place  at  all. 

(9).  Finally,  it  may  be  remarked  that  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory, 
after  having  burdened  itself  with  all  these  difficulties, 
has  to  shoulder  also  the  additional  one,  that  it  re- 
quires Christians  to  believe  that  the  most  of  the 
Mosaic  law  was  smuggled  into  currency  by  bare-faced 
frauds.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  said  by  the  sacred 
historian  to  have  been  ^'found''^  in  the  temple  by 
Hilkiah,  is  affirmed  by  the  critics  to  have  been  coin- 
posed  at  that  time,  perhaps  by  Hilkiah,  perhaps  by 
Jeremiah,  or  by  some  unknown  man  writing  in  the 
prophetical  spirit.  At  any  rate,  the  book  purports 
to  come  from  Moses  and  (we  are  asked  to  believe) 
was  deliberately  palmed  off  upon  the  king  and  others 
as  such.  The  end  to  be  gained  is  indeed  supposed 
to  have  been  a  good  one;  but  the  means  for  the 
attainment  of  the  end  are  conceived  to  have  been  a 
cunning  deception.  Either  Hilkiah  consciously  told 
a  falsehood  when  he  reported  that  he  had  found  the 
book  of  the  law;  or  some  one  else,  the  author  or  an 
agent  of  the  author,  had  somehow  stealthily  got  the 
book  hidden  in  the  temple  in  the  anticipation  that  it 
would  be  discovered  and  be  accepted  as  the  work  of 
Moses.  Hezekiah's  reformation,  undertaken  without 
any  such  Mosaic  warrant,  had  not  been  very  success- 
ful ;  now,  therefore,  it  was  determined  to  supply  such 
a  warrant  and  inflame  the  zeal  of  Josiah  by  means 
of  it.  The  process  was  a  trick  like  what  would  have 
been  accomplished,  if  Alexander  II.  of  Russia,  instead 
of  emancipating  the  serfs  by  his  own  independent  act, 


2^38  CHKIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

had  been  falsely  made  to  believe  that  a  previously 
unknown  or  forgotten  ukase  of  Peter  the  Great  or- 
dering the  liberation  of  the  serfs  had  been  discovered 
in  the  archives.  If  such  a  thing  had  really  happened, 
and  Alexander,  in  pious  horror  at  the  previous  non- 
execution  of  Peter's  edict,  had  at  once  put  it  in  force, 
the  serfs  would  indeed  have  been  freed;  but  what 
would  be  thought  of  a  government  and  a  people  in 
which  legislation,  good  or  bad,  could  be  brought 
•about  by  such  means?  Now  the  alleged  forgery  and 
fraudulent  introduction  of  Deuteronomy  would  have 
been  not  one  whit  more  excusable  than  the  supposed 
forgery  of  a  decree  of  Peter  the  Great.  No  palliation 
of  the  enormity  of  the  proceeding  can  succeed  in 
making  it  anything  else  than  a  shameful  fraud.  It  is 
generally  supposed  to  have  come  from  the  prophetical 
party,  if  not  from  some  genuine  prophet.  But  the 
prophets  are  justly  lauded  as  the  preachers  of  a  stern 
morality;  fraud,  injustice,  and  deceit  are  denounced 
by  them  in  the  most  vigorous  terms.  And  yet  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that,  as  the  result  of  their  in- 
fluence, this  fraudulent  scheme  was  devised  and  carried 
into  execution.  It  is  alleged  to  have  accomplished 
what  centuries  of  direct  preaching  had  failed  to 
accomplish.  No  amount  of  talk,  uttered  as  the  direct 
message  of  Jehovah,  had  succeeded  in  checking  the 
prevalence  of  idolatry  and  worship  on  the  high  places. 
This  one  unknown  prophet,  by  the  happy  device  of 
cheating  king,  priests,  and  people  into  the  belief  that 
a  hitherto  lost  work  of  the  great  deliverer  had  come 
to  light,  introduced  a  new  era  into  the  religious 
history  of  Israel !  What  would  have  been  thought  of 
his  conduct,   if  the  knowledge  of  it  had  at  that  time 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CEITICISM.        5^39 

leaked  out,  we  cannot  tell;  for  no  one  but  the  per- 
petrator (and  perhaps  the  few  who  were  in  the  secret 
and  faithfully  kept  it)  ever  knew  anything  about  it, 
until  in  this  present  century  their  crafty  trick  has 
been  found  out  by  pure  critical  insight !  It  is  hard  to 
determine  which  to  admire  most  —  the  shrewdness 
of  the  original  fraud,  or  the  shrewdness  of  the  de- 
tectives who  have  at  last  unearthed  it! 

The  shrewdness  appears,  however,  according  to 
the  modern  hypothesis,  to  have  been  confined  to  the 
mysterious  author  and  his  coadjutors.  If  such  a 
code  of  laws  had  never  before  been  heard  of,  it 
would,  we  should  suppose,  have  been  most  natural 
for  everybody  to  suspect  the  genuineness  of  it.  A 
genuine  book  of  Moses,  prescribing  civil  and  cere- 
monial laws  for  the  people,  could  not  have  passed 
into  oblivion  at  once.  Tradition  must  have  preserved 
some  account  of  it,  even  if  the  laws  had  been  poorly 
observed  and  the  written  copies  of  the  code  had  dis- 
appeared. On  the  supposition  that  such  traditional 
accounts  were  in  existence  and  that  some  parts  of 
the  law,  if  not  the  whole,  had  been  orally  handed 
down,  it  can  easily  be  understood  that,  even  though 
in  the  wicked  reign  of  Manasseh  all  or  nearly  all 
the  written  copies  had  perished,  the  now  discovered 
copy  would  be  recognized  as  a  genuine  document. 
But  if  such  laws  had  never  been  heard  of,  and  they 
were  now  brought  forward  for  the  first  time,  it  is 
simply  incredible  that  no  question  of  their  genuineness 
should  have  been  raised,  and  that  everybody  at  once 
—  king,  priests,  all  the  civil  officials,  and  even  the 
prophetess  Huldah  —  should  have  accepted  the  book 
as  the   law   of  Jehovah  given   through  Moses.     Such 


140 


CHBIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


simplicity,  if  it  really  was  the  universal  characteristic 
of  the  people  and  their  rulers,  must  have  exposed 
them  to  any  number  of  similar  swindles.  It  would 
seem  as  if  not  merely  two,  but  forty,  different  codes 
might  have  been  foisted  upon  the  nation,  and  that, 
however  irreconcilable  with  one  another,  they  would 
have  been  received  with  unquestioning  submission  by 
all  classes  of  the  people.  It  imposes,  however,  too 
strong  a  draught  on  one's  credulity  to  ask  him  to 
believe  that  deceptions  on  such  a  grand  scale  were 
possible.  But  even  if  they  were  possible,  the  moral 
enormity  of  them  would  not  be  mitigated  by  their 
success.  It  is  certainly  not  a  light  thing  to  ask 
Christian  men  to  believe  that  the  best  men  of  the 
Hebrew  nation,  acting,  too,  under  divine  inspiration, 
could  find  no  better  way  to  further  their  pious  design 
than  to  perpetrate  such  a  gigantic  forgery  and  to  smuggle 
it  into  acceptance  and  currency  by  a  brazen  fiilse- 
hood! 

A  similar  performance,  according  to  the  radical 
critics,  was  enacted  some  two  hundred  years  later, 
when  the  greater  part  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and 
Numbers  was  foisted  upon  the  returned  exiles  as 
being  the  genuine  original  law  of  Moses,  although  in 
fact  recently  composed  by  some  priest  of  whom  noth- 
ing more  is  known  than  of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy. 
But  he  must  have  been  a  singularly  clever  man,  if 
he  was  able  to  wheedle  such  men  as  Ezra  and  Ne- 
hemiah  into  believing  that  the  code  was  genuinely 
Mosaic.  If,  however,  we  suppose  that  Ezra  himself 
was  both  the  author  and  the  promulgator  of  the 
code,  then  we  have  the  forger  and  the  wholesale 
deceiver   in   one   person  —  a  supposition  which   cer- 


CBBISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        j^^.]^ 

tainly  does  not  mitigate  either  the  moral  or  the  psy- 
chological difficulties  of  the  problem.  Whatever  the 
theorists  may  profess  to  have  discovered,  certain  it 
is  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  if  we  can  trust  the  author 
(or  authors)  of  the  books  bearing  their  names,  either 
believed  or  pretended  to  believe  that  the  laws  now 
issued  were  really  Mosaic.  Somebody,  if  the  critical 
hypothesis  is  to  be  accepted ,  had  somehow  ac- 
complished the  "pious  fraud",  and  the  new  code  was 
successfully  introduced  into  the  number  of  the  sacred 
books,  and  destined  evermore  to  hold  a  front  rank 
therein. 

We  are  here  again  confronted  with  the  apparently 
insuperable  difficulty  of  carrying  such  a  scheme 
successfully  through.  Ezra  must  have  known,  we 
should  suppose,  that  up  to  his  own  time  no  such 
laws  had  been  heard  of;  and  how  could  he  have  been 
made  to  believe  that  now,  after  the  lapse  of  a  thou- 
sand years,  genuine  laws  from  Moses'  pen  had  actually 
been  brought  to  light  ?  Or  if  he  himself  and  Nehemiah 
were  parties  to  the  fraud,  even  then  is  it  conceivable 
that  the  people  in  general,  including  the  men  of  prom- 
inence in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  life,  who  had  here- 
tofore had  no  knowledge  or  tradition  of  any  such 
code,  could  quietly  and  unsuspectingly  have  received 
it  as  of  Mosaic  origin  ?  It  would  be  scarcely  possible 
to  point  to  any  similar  instance  of  deception  on  such 
a  colossal  scale.  The  case  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore 
Decretals  comes  perhaps  nearest  to  it.  But  it  was 
less  audacious  and  less  successful. 

Even  if,  however,  we  admit  the  possibility  of  such 
a  deception  being  accomplished,  the  moral  character 
of  it  is  not  thereby  redeemed.     The  heinousness  oi 


1^2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

the  thing  lies  on  the  surface.  The  e£fort  to  depre- 
cate a  severe  judgment  of  it,  by  reference  to  the  lax 
conscience  of  the  ancients  and  of  the  Orientals  in  the 
matter  of  deception,  must  be  pronounced  lame  and 
impotent.  No  doubt,  the  Orientals  lie  more  lightly 
than  the  Occidentals;  no  doubt,  Abraham  deceived 
Pharaoh,  Jacob  cheated  his  brother,  Jael  was  treach- 
erous to  Sisera,  aud  David  more  than  once  indulged 
in  falsehoods.  But  for  that  matter  lying  is  not  un- 
known even  among  professed  Christians  in  the  Western 
world.  There  is  more  self-complacency  than  satis- 
factoriness  in  the  apology  made  for  the  alleged  de- 
ceivers and  the  exploits  attributed  to  them.  It  is  one 
thing,  when  a  person,  actuated  by  fear,  vanity,  passion, 
or  selfishness,  perpetrates  a  falsehood;  quite  another, 
when  a  man,  consulting  for  the  highest  good  of  a 
nation  and  professing  to  be  actuated  by  the  fear  of 
God,  seeks  to  gain  his  end  by  a  gigantic  deception, 
and  that  too  when  there  is  no  occasion  or  excuse  for  it. 
For  in  the  case  before  us,  if  the  object  was  to  intro- 
duce a  new  ecclesiastical  legislation  or  reformation, 
there  were  other  ways  open  by  which  it  could  have 
been  gained.  The  king,  acting  on  the  advice  of  proph- 
ets or  priests,  might  have  introduced  it,  just  as 
Hezekiah  had  done ;  or  a  prophet,  acting  under  divine 
direction,  might  have  brought  forward  a  sacrificial 
code,  as  Ezekiel  did.  Should  it  be  said  that  there 
was  a  sanctity  attaching  to  any  legislation  coming 
from  Moses  which  could  not  belong  to  a  new  code, 
it  need  only  be  replied  that,  according  to  the  new 
hypothesis  itself,  whether  the  code  freshly  introduced 
should  be  believed  to  be  Mosaic  depended  on  faith 
in  prophetic  authority.    Josiah  was  confirmed  in  his 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        l^^, 

impressions  about  the  newly  discovered  law  by  thfr 
prophetic  verdict  of  Huldah;  and  the  returned  exiles 
accepted  the  Levitical  code  on  the  authority  of  Ezra^ 
their  great  ecclesiastical  leader.  There  was  so  strong 
a  presumption  against  the  genuineness  of  laws  pro- 
fessing to  be  Mosaic,  if  they  made  their  first  appear- 
ance centuries  after  Moses'  death,  that  a  peculiarly 
weighty  authority  would  be  required  to  certify  their 
genuineness.  It  would  have  been  easier  for  a  people, 
believing  in  the  reality  of  divinely  inspired  prophets, 
to  accept  an  absolutely  new  legislation  as  coming 
from  God  than  to  believe,  on  the  word  of  the  proph- 
ets, that  an  old  lost  law  of  Moses  had  come  to 
light.  There  was,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  the  al- 
leged trick  of  palming  off  upon  the  people  a  new  code 
as  an  old  one. 

Such  a  necessity  can  be  made  out  to  have  existed 
only  on  the  assumption  that  the  people's  faith  in  the 
inspiration  and  authority  of  Moses,  though  unfounded^ 
was  so  dominant  that,  in  order  to  introduce  new 
legislation,  it  was  necessary  to  take  advantage  of  the 
popular  superstition  about  Moses.  The  necessity,  in 
this  case,  was  similar  to  that  which  some  enlightened 
critics  have  found  in  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church.  No  miracles,  they  say,  ever  took  place,  not 
even  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  but  it  was  necessary 
to  propagate  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  in  order  to 
get  a  start  for  the  Christian  religion.  This,  if  the 
evidence  for  it  were  conclusive,  might  possibly  answer^, 
if  we  were  dealing  with  a  purely  secular  history  and 
the  scheming  of  mere  politicians;  these  have  never  been 
overscrupulous  in  the  means  for  attaining  their  ends» 
But  if  we  are  dealing  with  a  sacred  history,  if  Grod 


144  CHEIST  AND  CBITICISM. 

by  special  inspiration  determined  the  course  of  Jewish 
history  and  legislation,  then  it  is  scarcely  less  than 
sacrilege  to  assume  that  he  employed  such  a  disgrace- 
ful method  of  accomplishing  his  end  as  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Pentateuchal  codes  is  supposed  to 
have  been. 

It  is  true,  some  attempts  are  made  to  palliate  the 
seeming  shamefulness  of  the  process  by  which  (ac- 
cording to  the  hypothesis  under  consideration)  the 
ceremonial  code  was  smuggled  into  acceptance  and 
application.  Thus  Prof.  W.  E,.  Smith  ^  says,  "People 
who  have  not  understood  the  Old  Testament  are  ac- 
customed to  say,  with  the  usual  presumption  of  un- 
historical  rationalism,  that  this  [introduction  of  the 
Levitical  code  as  the  Law  of  Moses]  is  either  literally 
true  or  a  lie.  The  reverent  and  thoughtful  student, 
who  knows  the  complicated  difficulties  of  the  problem, 
will  not  willingly  accept  this  statement  of  the  question. 
If  we  are  tied  up  to  make  a  choice  between  these 
two  alternatives,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  all 
the  historical  evidence  that  has  come  before  us  points 
in  the  direction  of  the  second".  But  then  he  goes 
on  to  represent  that  the  word  "Mosaic"  was  under- 
stood to  mean  only  "Mosaic  in  principle",  and  that, 
inasmuch  as  "Moses  was  priest  as  well  as  prophet, 
both  priests  and  prophets  referred  the  origin  of 
their  Torah  to  him".  Accordingly,  "to  reconcile  the 
prophets  and  the  priesthood,  to  establish  conformity 
between  the  practice  of  Israel's  worship  and  the 
spiritual  teachings  of  the  prophets,  was  to  return  to 
the  standpoint   of  Moses   and  bring  back   the  Torah 

'  Old  Testament  etc.,  p.  307  sqq. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ^^^ 

to  its  original  oneness.  Whether  this  was  done  by 
bringing  to  light  a  forgotten  Mosaic  book,  or  by  re- 
casting the  traditional  and  consuetudinary  law  in 
accordance  with  Mosaic  principles,  is  a  question 
purely  historical,  which  does  not  at  all  affect  the 
legitimacy  of  the  work". 

Now  if  this  means  (as  it  seems  to  mean)  that 
Moses  really  promulgated  some  kind  of  sacrificial 
ritual,  and  that  the  one  enforced  by  Ezra  was  nothing 
but  a  normal  development  of  that  original  germ,  the 
strong  characterization  above  made  of  the  post-exilic 
legislation  (as  conceived  by  the  radical  critics)  should 
be  much  modified.  But  all  the  preceding  part  of 
Professor  Smith's  book  has  been  an  elaborate  attempt 
to  prove  that  Moses  gave  no  laws  except  the  Decalogue; 
•only  a  few  pages  before  the  passages  above  quoted 
the  author  announces  as  his  conclusion,  "What  is 
quite  certain  is  that,  according  to  the  prophets,  the 
Torah  of  Moses  did  not  embrace  a  law  of  ritual. 
Worship  by  sacrifice,  and  all  that  belongs  to  it,  is 
no  part  of  the  divine  Torah  to  Israel"  (p.  298).  Now, 
however,  only  thirteen  pages  later,  we  are  told,  as  a 
means  of  relieving  Ezra  and  his  associates  of  the 
grave  charge  of  fraud ,  that  by  introducing  the  Le- 
vitical  code  they  did  nothing  but  "to  return  to  the 
standpoint  of  Moses  and  bring  back  the  Torah  to  its 
original  oneness".  Now  this  may  be  "reverent  and 
thoughtful",  but  to  the  plain  common  sense  of  ordi- 
nary men  it  cannot  seem  to  be  less  than  a  flat  self- 
contradiction  into  which  the  author  has  plunged  in 
his  desperate  effort  to  overcome  the  "complicated 
difficulties"  of  his  own  theory.  It  certainly  leaves  us 
still  in  the   predicament  into  which  "unhistorical  ra- 

10 


I^g  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

tionalism"  puts  us,  viz.,  that  of  being  obliged  to 
decide  whether  Ezra's  representations  were  "literalljr 
true  or  a  lie".  And  the  main  drift  of  his  book,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  confession,  certainly  compels  us, 
if  we  accept  his  conclusions,  to  adopt  the  second  part 
of  the  alternative.  Where  the  charge  of  "unhistorical 
rationalism"  most  properly  lies,  may  be  left  for  the 
judicious  to  decide. 

These  are  some  of  the  serious  difficulties  which  a 
merely  cursory  glance  at  the  theory  of  the  advanced 
critics  forces  upon  one's  notice.  Our  purpose  does 
not  devolve  upon  us  the  task  of  entering  on  a  minute 
consideration  of  the  theory.  This  work  has  been  done 
by  others,  who  have  followed  up  the  arguments  in 
detail,  and  have  exposed  the  numerous  arbitrary  hy- 
potheses, self-contradictions,  illogical  inferences,  and 
other  fallacies,  of  the  works  of  those  who  are  under- 
taking to  familiarize  the  Christian  public  with  their 
new  light  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament.. 
What  is  now  to  be  insisted  on  is  that  a  hypothesis 
which  undertakes  to  supplant  the  traditional  opinion 
on  the  ground  of  certain  difficulties  which  beset  the 
latter  cannot  be  regarded  as  established  so  long  as 
it  creates,  to  say  the  least,  as  great  difficulties  as 
those  which  it  removes.  And  chief  among  these 
difficulties,  especially  from  a  Christian  point  of  view, 
is  the  fact  that  the  new  hypothesis  asks  us  to  believe 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  to  a  very  large  extent 
made  up  of  books  that  were  smuggled  into  the  collec- 
tion by  artifice  and  fraud,  of  books  deliberately  forged 
and  finding  their  way  into  the  Canon  by  virtue  of  a 
false  impression  as  to  their  authorship,  and  of  books 
so  largely  interpolated  and  changed  by  partisan  writers 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ^^J 

that  the  original  meaning  and  intent  is  often  buried  up 
in  the  mass  of  unauthentic  and  misleading  additions. 
And  this,  without  any  exaggeration,  is  the  out- 
come of  the  speculations  of  that  particular  critical 
school  which  to-day  professes  to  be  the  only  truly 
scientific  one.  The  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  are 
regarded  as  almost  wholly  made  up  of  myth,  legend, 
and  fiction,  and  very  largely  of  forged  productions 
brought  into  currency  by  fraud.  Only  a  few  scraps 
of  trustworthy  traditions  are  thought  to  be  discoverable. 
In  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  is  found  more  histor- 
ical matter  —  particularly  those  parts  which  favor 
the  critical  theory;  but  these  books  are  all  supposed 
to  be  so  largely  ^'worked  over"  by  later  writers  for 
partisan  purposes  that  as  a  whole  they  cannot  be 
relied  on.  As  to  the  books  of  Chronicles,  though  they 
contain  some  truth,  the  history  is  so  thoroughly  soaked 
with  the  priestliness  of  the  author  that  they  are 
practically  of  no  value.  Ruth  and  Esther  are  inter- 
esting stories,  with  no  ascertainable  foundation  in 
fact.  The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  more 
trustworthy,  but  in  representing  the  ceremonial  law 
introduced  by  these  men  as  Mosaic  they  have  to  be 
corrected  according  to  the  critical  hypothesis.  The 
poetical  and  prophetical  books  also  are  regarded  with 
considerable  respect.  But  the  Psalms,  contrary  to 
previous  views,  are  mostly  or  altogether  relegated  to 
a  late  post-exilic  period.  This  is  done  without  the 
slightest  historical  evidence,  in  opposition,  indeed,  to 
all  the  historical  evidence  attainable,  particularly  to 
the  superscriptions  in  the  Septuagint,  which  takes  us 
back  to  a  period  almost  contemporaneous  with  that 
in  which  the  Psalms  are  supposed  to  have  been  com- 

10* 


148 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


posed;  so  that  here  too  we  are  asked  to  believe  in  a 
very  extensive  falsification  of  history,  and,  moreover, 
a  falsification  which  must  in  a  very  large  degree 
have  been  consciously  and  deliberately  perpetrated. 
The  prophetical  books,  with  few  exceptions,  are  left 
comparatively  undisturbed  by  the  majority  even  of 
the  advanced  critics ;  but  some  scholars,  especially  in 
France,  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  these  books 
too  are  all  post-exilic.  How  soon  this  hypothesis 
will  be  trumpeted  as  a  '^result"  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism cannot  yet  be  said. 

Such,  in  general  terms,  is  the  Old  Testament  as 
it  is  pictured  to  us  by  the  radical  critics  of  the  present 
day.  And  whatever  else  may  be  said  about  this 
representation,  it  must  be  said  of  it  that  it  does  not 
agree  with  the  view  evidently  entertained  by  Christ 
and  his  immediate  disciples.  Books  known  to  have 
such  an  origin  and  such  a  character  as  the  radical 
critics  ascribe  to  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
could  not  have  been  spoken  of  with  such  reverence 
as  Christ  always  expressed  towards  those  Scriptures. 
It  is  true  that  he  spoke  in  general  terms;  but  this 
only  makes  his  utterances  all  the  more  significant. 
If  he  had  particularly  quoted  and  sanctioned  only 
certain  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  might  have 
been  an  open  question  whether  he  did  not  mean  im- 
plicitly to  withold  his  sanction  from  the  others.  But 
he  spoke  of  the  whole  collection  in  such  a  way  as 
to  leave  no  doubt  that  he  conceived  it  to  be  a 
collection  of  the  oracles  of  God,  a  book  to  be  dili- 
gently studied  as  a  source  of  religious  instruction  and 
guidance.     It  is  impossible   that   he   should  have   so 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.       ^^^^ 

conceived  of  a  book  in  the   composition   of  which  a 
large  part  was  played  by  forgers  and  deceivers. 

One  who  entertains  such  a  view  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment cannot  save  his  respect  for  the  authority  of 
Christ  by  saying  that  Christ  came  as  a  religious 
teacher  rather  than  as  a  critical  scholar,  and  that  it 
was  not  essential  to  the  purposes  of  his  mission  to 
reveal,  or  even  to  know,  the  real  process  by  which 
the  Old  Testament  came  into  existence.  No  doubt, 
his  primary  mission  was  a  spiritual  one.  But  he 
announced  it  as  an  important  part  of  his  work  to 
fulfil  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  He  undertook  to  ex- 
pound those  writings.  He  appealed  to  them  as  of 
divine  origin  and  as  a  treasure-house  of  religious 
enlightenment  and  edification.  A  book  which  thus 
lay  at  the  very  foundation  of  his  religious  work  it 
surely  behooved  him  to  know  about.  And  if  the  book 
largely  originated  in  the  brain  of  forgers,  if  it  is  in 
great  part  conscious  fiction,  and  if  writings  of  this 
character  were  foisted  into  the  Canon  by  means  of 
fraudulent  representations,  then  it  cannot  be  said  that 
it  was  of  no  consequence  for  him  to  know  anything 
about  this  discreditable  manner  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  came  to  be.  Indeed  the  advanced  critic 
who  undertakes  to  say  that  it  was  of  no  consequence 
for  Christ,  even  if  he  knew  about  the  real  origin  of 
the  Old  Testament,  to  make  any  disclosures  about  it, 
stultifies  himself  when  he  also  undertakes  to  set  forth 
the  great  usefulness  of  modern  Biblical  criticism.  It 
is  proclaimed  to  be  of  immense  importance  that  the 
traditional  notions  concerning  the  Old  Testament 
should  be  rectified.     But  if  it  is  of  so   much   impor- 


150  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

tance    now,   why   not   of  equal,   if  not  even  greater, 
importance  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era? 

The  Christian  public  has  so  often  been  told,  in  a 
magisterial  and  even  intimidating  way,  that  it  is  en- 
tirely unwarrantable  to  adduce  the  authority  of  Christ 
against  any  result  which  is  supposed  to  have  been 
reached  by  critical  research,  that  it  requires  some 
courage  to  intimate  that  perhaps  after  all  he  was  as 
well  qualified  to  come  to  a  correct  conclusion  about 
the  origin  and  value  of  the  Old  Testament  as  Julius 
Wellhausen  or  Abraham  Kuenen.  And  though  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  he  devoted  much,  if  any, 
time  to  the  discussion  of  questions  of  Biblical  criti- 
cism, it  does  not  follow  that  he  did  not  have  the  abil- 
ity to  do  so,  had  he  found  occasion  for  it.  And  that 
he  had  occasion  to  know  about  the  history  and  char- 
acter of  the  Old  Testament,  is  implied  in  his  con- 
stant reference  to  it  as  an  authoritative  book.  We 
are  then  logically  driven  to  ask  whether  he  was  unable 
to  learn  the  main  facts  which  are  supposed  to  have 
been  recently  brought  to  light.  In  other  words,  was 
he  decidedly  inferior  in  intellectual  acumen  to  the 
Biblical  scholars  of  the  present  day?  On  the  contrary, 
a  genuine  and  reverent  faith  in  Christ  as  the  final 
and  perfect  Revealer  of  the  divine  will  and  purposes 
to  men  cannot  fail  to  be  conjoined  with  a  conception 
of  him  as  having  a  mind  of  exceptional  clearness  and 
force.  He  had  the  Old  Testament  before  him.  Mani- 
festly he  was  well  acquainted  with  it.  He  had  sub- 
stantially all  the  means  of  forming  a  judgment  con- 
cerning critical  questions  which  are  enjoyed  today. 
If  the  prophets  were  ignorant  of  any  Mosaic  law  of 
ritual,  and  even  declared  that  there  was  none,   Jesus 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        ]^5| 

must  have  been  able  to  learn  what  they  taught.  If  the 
historical  books  everywhere  imply  the  non-existence 
of  the  ritual  law,  Jesus  was  competent  —  possibly  as 
competent  as  Robertson  Smith  —  to  discover  the 
implication.  In  short,  there  is  scarcely  a  problem 
raised  by  Biblical  critics  respecting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  we  must  not  suppose  that  Jesus  was  as 
able  to  consider  and  to  settle  as  any  modern 
scholar. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  very  ugly  dilemma  into  which 
one  places  himself  who  accepts  the  Wellhausen  theory, 
and  at  the  same  time  endeavors  to  retain  his  Christian 
faith.  Either  Christ  knew  all  about  the  real  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament,  or  he  did  not.  If  he  did, 
then  he  made  himself  a  party  to  the  deceptions  which 
had,  according  to  the  theory  in  question,  been  prac- 
tised on  the  Jewish  people.  He  represented  that  to 
be  the  word  of  God  which,  we  are  assured,  was  to  a 
great  extent  a  cunningly  devised  fable.  But  if,  know- 
ing the  facts  to  be  what  modern  criticism  professes 
to  have  proved  them  to  be,  he  kept  his  knowledge  to 
himself,  and  even  made  the  impression  that  he  had 
a  totally  different  conception  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
from  that  which  his  critical  knowledge  must  have 
given  him,  then  he  was  guilty  of  a  dishonest  procedure 
which  makes  him  unworthy  of  our  confidence,  and 
undermines  all  ground  for  our  Christian  faith. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  Christ  was  ignorant  of  the 
real  character  and  origin  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
then  his  honesty  is  saved,  but  at  the  expense  of  his 
competency  to  do  the  work  which  he  assumed.  He 
always  spoke  as  one  having  authority.  He  claimed  the 
most  exalted  prerogatives.     He  announced  himself  to 


152 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


be  the  Light  of  the  world.  He  called  himself  the 
Son  of  God  and  represented  himself  to  be  the  final 
revelation  of  God  to  men.  But  if  in  an  important 
part  of  his  religious  teaching  he  was  laboring  under 
a  serious  error  —  an  error  which  he  was  unable  to 
avoid  —  the  natural  inference  will  be  that  one  who 
can  be  so  little  depended  on  as  regards  the  past 
history  of  God's  revelation  can  be  no  better  depended 
on  when  he  speaks  of  the  future.  If  Christ  were 
with  us  now,  and  were  confronted  by  the  critics  who- 
profess  to  have  discovered  how  much  mistaken  he 
was  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  he  might  well 
address  to  them  (though  with  a  different  implication) 
the  question  which  he  put  to  Nicodemus,  "If  I  told 
you  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye 
believe,  if  I  tell  you  heavenly  things?"  (John  iii.  12)» 
In  short,  it  is  difficult  to  see  by  what  warrant  Christ's 
testimony  concerning  the  books  of  the  Old  Covenant 
can  be  freely  rejected,  and  any  genuine  confidence 
can  be  left  in  the  infallibility  of  his  utterances  con- 
cerning the  future  life  and  the  spiritual  world. 

"What  has  been  said  does  not  apply  to  those  anal- 
yses of  the  Old  Testament  which  assume  the  sub- 
stantially historical  character  of  it.  The  critical  par- 
tition of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  among  a  number 
of  different  writers  does  not  necessarily  require  us 
to  assume  that  the  whole  course  of  Old  Testament 
history  is  falsely  given  by  the  books  as  they  stand. 
One  can  believe  that  Moses  gave  the  law,  at  least  in 
its  main  features,  without  assuming  that  Moses  him- 
self wrote  it  all  down.  The  critical  partition  of  the 
books  is  indeed  carried  out  to  a  degree  of  minuteness 
which  of  itself  is  suspicious.    One  can  hardly  restrain 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.        I53 

the  doubt  whether  it  is  possible  by  mere  critical 
acumen  to  dissect  so  ancient  a  work  into  its  constit- 
uent parts,  especially  when  the  dissection  is  carried 
so  far  that  single  verses,  clauses,  and  even  words,  are 
dissevered  from  their  connection,  and  a  redactor  has 
to  be  postulated  as  responsible  for  phenomena  that 
cannot  otherwise  be  accounted  for.  Still  a  plausible 
case  can  be  made  out  for  much  of  the  critical  process. 
And  so  long  as  the  course  of  Jewish  and  primeval 
history  was  left  by  it  substantially  untouched,  so  that 
the  only  result  was  the  assumption  that  the  Penta- 
teuchal  laws  and  history  were  largely  not  written 
down  by  Moses,  but  by  subsequent  narrators  who 
committed  the  Mosaic  legislation  and  traditions  to 
paper,  the  critical  partition,  whether  regarded  as 
conclusively  made  out  or  not,  was  a  comparatively 
harmless  thing. 

But  the  case  is  different  when  the  result  of  the 
critical  analysis  is  to  introduce  a  revolution  in  our 
conception  of  Jewish  history,  and  to  make  a  large 
part  of  the  Biblical  books  forgeries  and  fictions  which 
gained  the  reputation  of  sacredness  and  divine  author- 
ity by  fraudulent  tricks.  And  yet,  no  doubt,  much  of 
the  fascination  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  more  radical 
critics  is  derived  from  just  this  fact,  that  it  does  seek 
to  revolutionize  the  current  view  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  Jewish  history.  So  long  as  there  is  little 
more  in  the  critical  analysis  than  a  display  of  schol- 
arly acumen,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  any  perma- 
nent interest  will  be  felt  in  the  process.  But  when 
it  promises  to  involve  striking  results  in  our  general 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  why,  then 
there  is  something  exciting  in  it;  it  falls  in  with  the 


J  54  CHRI6T  AND  CRITICISM. 

propensity  of  the  age  to  welcome  any  departure  from 
the  old  ways  of  doing  and  thinking ;  there  is  a  touch 
of  the  heroic  in  it  which  wins  admiration.  All  this,, 
however,  does  not  prove  it  to  be  true,  and  with  the 
more  sober-minded   is   of  itself  a  ground  of  distrust. 


CHAPTER  IT. 


CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 


1.  It  may  be  anticipated  that,  to  the  conclusions 
reached  in  the  foregoing  discussion,  some  will  object 
that,  if  accepted,  they  impose  an  unwarrantable  fetter 
upon  criticism.  Must  not  the  critic,  it  may  be  asked, 
be  perfectly  free  to  come  to  any  result  which  the 
discovered  facts  require?  And  is  it  not  illegitimate 
to  try  to  control  scientific  research  by  setting  up 
against  it  any  personal  authority  whatever,  even  that 
of  Christ?  Must  it  not  be  assumed  that  no  fact  or 
truth  discovered  by  scientific  research  can  be  overthrown 
even  by  the  Teacher  who  came  to  bear  witness  to 
the  truth? 

Now  let  all  this  be  heartily  conceded;  and  let  it 
be  emphatically  insisted  on  that  it  is  foolish  and 
wicked  in  any  one  to  dispute  established  facts,  or  wil- 
fully to  ignore  them.  That  is,  however,  not  the  real 
issue  before  us.  When  a  scholar  professes  to  have 
made  important  discoveries,  there  are  two  points  to 
be  considered:  first,  whether  the  alleged  facts  are 
really  facts ;  secondly,  if  this  is  conceded,  whether  the 


156  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

inferences  drawn  from  the  facts  are  necessary  or  legit- 
imate. And  even  though  from  some  facts  a  certain 
inference  might  be  legitimate,  it  must  be  considered 
whether  the  inference  can  be  harmonized  with  other 
facts  equally  well  established.  In  secular  science  a 
theory  is  never  regarded  as  demonstrated  unless  it 
accords  with  all  known  facts.  Even  though  nearly 
all  may  seem  to  justify  it,  yet  if  even  a  single  in- 
disputable fact  is  irreconcilable  with  the  theory,  then 
the  theory  must  be  abandoned  or  at  least  modified. 
The  Ptolemaic  theory  of  the  heavenly  bodies  seemed 
to  be  borne  out  by  all  the  observed  phenomena;  but 
as  soon  as  the  single  fact  of  the  phases  of  the  planet 
Venus  was  discovered,  the  old  theory  was  seen  to  be 
incorrect.  When  in  any  case  the  induction  of  facts 
is  incomplete,  the  inferences,  or  general  principles, 
derived  from  them  must  be  regarded  as  hypothetical 
and  provisional. 

It  is  obvious,  in  view  of  these  admitted  principles, 
that  many  of  the  so-called  ^'results"  of  modern  Biblical 
criticism  are  very  largely  nothing  but  hypotheses. 
They  are  in  harmony  with  certain  facts,  but  are  in- 
consistent with  other  facts.  !No  one  can  be  called  on 
to  give  assent  to  them  as  being  themselves  facts  which 
it  is  idle  to  dispute.  They  are  nothing  but  inferences, 
hypotheses,  with  which  by  no  means  all  the  recognized 
facts  have  yet  been  reconciled.  In  many  cases  doubt- 
less we  may  have  to  hesitate  as  between  two  opposing 
theories.  Certain  facts  may  be  reconcilable  with 
either  of  them;  some  facts  favor  the  one,  others  the 
other.  Though  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  theories 
must  be  true,  the  data  are  insufficient  for  determining 
absolutely   on   which   side  the  truth   lies.     Take,   for 


CONCLUDING  EEMAKKS.  J 57 

instance,   the    question   whether  the   coincidences  in 
the  three  Synoptic  Gospels  indicate  an  earlier  written 
history  from  which  the  common  features  were  derived. 
Either  they  do,  or  they  do  not;   but   whichever  view 
one  may  take,  it  can  at  the  best  be  called  only  hypo- 
thetical,   since   the  admitted  phenomena  are   largely 
indecisive,  and  the  facts  which  would  suffice  to  settle 
the  question   are   not   ascertainable.     Or  let  us  con- 
sider the  critical  question,  whether  the  apostle  John 
wrote  the  Fourth  Gospel.     We  have  here,    as   facts, 
the  style  and  contents  of  the  book,  noticeably  different 
from  those  of  the  other  Gospels ;    the   virtual,  if  not 
formal,   claim  of  the   book   to  have  been  written  by 
John ;   the   absence   of  any  external  attestation  of  its 
genuineness   up  to   about   the  second  quarter,  or  (as 
some  affirm)  up  to  the  middle,  of  the  second  century ; 
the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Church   that  John  was 
the  author.     Now  those    who   defend,   and  those  who 
contest,  the  Johannean  authorship  undertake  to  bring 
their  theory  into   accord   with   all   the   various   facts 
concerning  the  book.     Both  theories  cannot  be  true; 
but  so  long  as  both  are  advocated,  each  must  be  re- 
garded  as   a    hypothesis    rather    than    as    an    estab- 
lished fact. 

This,  however,  does  not  mean  that  the  two  hy- 
potheses are  equally  worthy  of  credit.  And  especially 
should  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  presumiMon  is  on 
the  side  of  the  traditional  view.  If  John  has  always 
been  reputed  to  be  the  author  of  the  book,  he  must 
be  regarded  as  the  author,  unless  this  opinion  is 
clearly  proved  untenable  by  undeniable  facts.  Unless 
this  principle  is  allowed,  all  literary  and  political 
history  becomes   a  jumble  of  uncertainties.     How  do 


]^58  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

we  know  that  John  Bunyan  wrote  the  Pilgrim's  Prog- 
ress? or  that  Quintilian  wrote  the  Institutes  of  Ora- 
tory? For  substance  the  evidence  is  nothing  but  a 
uniform  trarlition.  The  same  may  be  affirmed  in 
general  of  both  ancient  and  modern  literature.  The 
authorship  and  date  are  chiefly  matters  of  tradition. 
The  burden  of  j)roof  rests  heavily  on  any  one  who 
would  reject  the  traditional  view;  and  only  in  excep- 
tional cases  is  it  possible  for  scholars  to  overthrow  it 
by  a  critical  inspection  of  the  works  themselves.  And 
if  in  the  attempt  to  overthrow  the  current  opinion 
one  fails  to  do  justice  to  admitted  facts,  or  burdens 
his  own  theory  with  difficulties  which  did  not  beset 
the  older  one,  it  is  preposterous  to  claim  for  the 
new  theory  that  it  is  the  true  one  and  must  supplant 
the  other. 

This  principle  should  be  kept  in  mind  when  the 
demand  is  made  that  the  modern  radical  hypothesis 
concerning  the  Old  Testament  shall  be  accepted  as 
demonstrated.  It  is  undoubtedly  favored  by  some 
facts,  but  it  is  far  from  being  reconcilable  with  all 
the  facts.  It  not  only  has  to  discard  the  testimony 
of  tradition,  but  it  has  to  go  counter  to  the  uniform 
testimony  of  the  Bible  itself,  and  in  doing  so  is 
forced  to  assume  a  large  number  of  interpolations, 
falsifications,  and  reconstructions  in  the  Biblical  books. 
Instead  of  satisfying  all  the  facts,  it  seeks  to  put 
facts  out  of  the  way;  and,  instead  of  removing  all 
difficulties,  it  exposes  itself  to  very  formidable  ones 
which  do  not  beset  the  view  which  it  aims  to  supplant. 
It  is,  therefore,  a  violation  of  all  sound  principles  of 
criticism,  when  this  hypothesis  is  heralded  as  a  truth 
which  can  claim  the  assent  of  all  right-minded  men.  If  any 


CONCLUDING  KEMARKS.  ]^59 

further  proof  of  this  were  required,  it  would  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  thirty  years  ago,  long  after  the  critical 
partition  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been  made,  and  in 
full  view  of  all  ascertainable  facts  bearing  on  the 
question,  the  theory  of  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the 
Levitical  law  was  ridiculed  by  nearly  all  Biblical 
scholars  of  every  stripe  as  a  critical  monstrosity. 
Surely  that  which  was  then  regarded  as  the  vagary 
of  an  extremist  cannot  now  have  become  all  of  a 
sudden  an  incontestable  certainty. 

But,  we  are  sometimes  told,  the  opinion  of  scholars 
is  now  so  nearly  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis 
in  question  that  it  has  practically  the  character  of 
an  established  fact.  To  this  it  need  only  be  replied 
that,  even  if  the  allegation  were  true^  this  holding 
up  in  terrorem  of  the  agreement  of  scholars  could 
not  nullify  the  serious  difficulties  under  which  the 
hypothesis  labors.  But  the  allegation  is  not  true. 
He  who  talks  as  if  all  the  scholars  of  Germany 
accept  the  theory  of  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  or  even  of  the  Levitical  law  simply  shows 
his  ignorance  of  facts.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  the 
critical  partition  of  the  book,  this  revolutionary  re- 
construction of  Old  Testament  history  and  legislation 
is  rejected  by  a  large  proportion  of  modern  German 
scholars.  Delitzsch,  Dillmann,  Riehm,  Kohler,  Breden- 
kamp,  Strack,  and  other  men  of  a  similar  stamp,  are 
not  to  be  put  into  the  same  category  with  Well- 
hausen,  Kuenen,  Eeuss,  and  Budde. 

When,  therefore,  one  adduces  the  authority  of 
Christ  in  opposition  to  the  Wellhausen  theory,  he  is 
not  attempting  to  overthrow  an  established  fact  by 
a  mere  dictum.    The  question  before  us  is  not  whether 


IQQ  CHEIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

facts  shall  be  admitted,  but  whether  certain  theories 
are  required  by  the  facts,  or  even  duly  recognize  all 
the  facts.  And  very  prominent  among  the  facts  is 
the  testimony  of  Christ  himself  on  the  controverted 
point.  This  testimony  is  one  —  and  certainly  a  very 
important  one  —  among  many  facts  which  militate 
against  the  inferences  which  are  drawn  from  other 
facts;  shall  it  not  be  admitted  in  evidence? 

Still  it  may  be  contended  that,  though  Christ's 
testimony  may  be  admitted  for  what  it  is  worth,  yet 
it  will  not  do  to  set  it  up  on  critical  matters  as  de- 
cisive against  the  results  which  critical  research  may 
reach.  Even  if  his  testimony  is  rightly  apprehended, 
still  (the  critic  may  say)  there  is  the  possibility  that 
he  was  so  limited  in  his  knowledge  that  what  he 
said  cannot  counterbalance  the  consentient  testimony 
of  the  evidences  on  the  other  side.  But,  in  the  first 
place,  Christ's  testimony  does  not  stand  alone,  but  is 
one  among  many.  And,  in  the  second  place,  whetever 
may  be  true  of  certain  subordinate  critical  questions, 
there  are  some  matters  on  which  his  authority  must 
be  taken  as  conclusive,  or  else  our  faith  in  him  as  a 
Teacher  and  Redeemer  is  misplaced.  Criticism  may, 
if  it  will,  try  to  undermine  all  that  Christ  said,  and 
prove  him  to  have  been  an  ignoramus  or  a  deceiver. 
But  this  would  not  be  Christian  criticism.  Any  one 
is  at  liberty  to  go  this  extreme;  but  he  cannot  do  so 
as  a  Christian. 

Just  on  what  points  Christ's  testimony  must  be 
unconditionally  accepted,  even  though  opposed  to  what 
are  called  the  ^'results"  of  criticism,  is  a  matter  for 
Christian  common  sense  to  determine.  The  preceding 
chapters  of  this  work  constitute   an  attempt  to  point 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


161 


out  some  of  the  limits  beyond  which  the  theories  of 
critics  can  no  longer  rightly  ask  to  be  accepted  by 
Christians.  The  effort  has  been  made  to  indicate  in 
a,  general  way  some  of  the  tendencies  and  alleged 
discoveries  of  Biblical  criticism  which  directly  or 
indirectly  involve  a  rejection  of  faith  in  Christ.  It 
has  been  assumed  that  in  genuine  Christians  this  faith 
is  something  radical  —  something  that  is  incapable 
of  being  overturned  by  every  wind  of  doctrine  or  by 
•every  plausible  objection  which  may  be  raised.  It 
has  been  assumed  that  Christian  faith  involves  an 
-experience  of  divine  grace  and  an  apprehension  of 
divine  truth  so  well  grounded  that  they  cannot  be 
proved  spurious  and  false.  It  has  been  assumed 
that  in  entering  upon  a  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures 
a  Christian  begins  with  the  fundamental  conviction 
that  Christianity  is  impregnable.  One  who  enters 
upon  the  critical  examination  in  a  different  spirit  — 
one  who  does  it  with  a  perfect  readiness  to  surrender 
his  Christian  faith  as  soon  as  anything  turns  up 
which  seems  seriously  to  conflict  with  it  —  such  a 
one  can  hardly  be  called  a  true  Christian  at  all. 
If  his  faith  is  not  a  deep-seated  thing,  but  only  like  a 
ooat  which  can  be  put  on  or  off  according  as  the 
wind  blows,  it  is  not  of  the  genuine  kind.  If  it  is 
genuine,  it  constitutes  a  prepossession^  which  cannot 
but  modify  the  inferences  that  one  draws  from  the 
truths  which  critical  research  brings  to  light.  It  is 
a  simple  fact  of  history  that  the  same  things  which  to 
to  some  are  a  clear  proof  of  the  falseness  of  Christianity 
are  not  at  all  such  to  others.  And  the  reason  is 
simply  that  to  the  latter  the  foundations  of  Christian- 
ity are  so  firm  that  they  cannot  be  shaken.    If  any 

11 


\Q2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

fact  seems  to  be  inconsistent  with  it,  the  true  Christian^ 
can  only  say  that  it  must  be  a  mere  seeming,  since 
to  abandon  his  faith  would  require  him  to  come  into 
conflict  with  evidences  that  are  much  more  decisive 
for  the  Christian  faith  than  the  others  can  be  against  it- 

In  a  very  important  sense,  therefore,  one's  freedom 
is  limited  by  the  mere  fact  of  his  being  a  Christian. 
He  is  not  free,  as  a  Christian,  to  deny  or  blaspheme 
his  Lord;  he  is  not  free  to  declare  other  religions 
superior  or  equal  to  Christianity;  he  is  not  free  to^ 
propound  doctrines  or  draw  inferences  which  are 
directly  or  implicitly  at  war  with  the  fundamental 
truths  of  Christianity.  As  a  Christian  critic,  he  is 
not  free  to  follow  the  skeptic  in  his  an ti- Christian 
conclusions.  But  within  the  limits  of  the  Christian 
faith  there  is  a  wide  range  of  research;  and  here 
Christians  have  perfect  freedom.  Even  though  some 
may  indulge  in  errors  or  vagaries,  these  will  soon  be 
corrected  or  forgotten.  If  any  seem  to  come  to  un- 
warrantable conclusions,  it  only  remains  for  others 
to  refute  them.  Free  discussion  and  investigation 
will  in  the  long  run  be  the  best  corrective  of  erro- 
neous or  erratic  notions. 

2.  What  is  now  called  ^^higher  criticism"  is  nothing 
new  except  in  name.  This  of  course  is,  or  should  be, 
a  truism;  and  yet  an  impression  seems  widely  to 
prevail  (and  has  to  some  extent  been  fostered  by  the 
critics  themselves),  that  the  science  of  higher  criticism 
is  a  decidedly  modern  thing,  a  recent  invention,  as  it 
were.  No  mistake  could  be  greater.  It  is  true  that 
the  modern  critic  has  some  facilities  for  his  work 
which  are  superior  to  those  formerly  enjoyed;  and 
at   any   rate   each  generation    has   the  advantage  of 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


163 


being  able  to  make  use  of  the  labors  of  the  preceding 
ones.  But,  after  all,  the  principal  facts  on  the  basis 
of  which  modern  critical  theories  are  put  forth  have 
been  patent  to  all  the  world  from  the  first  century 
of  our  era.  And  there  have  always  been  higher  critics. 
The  early  Christians,  in  deciding  what  writings  to 
accept  as  of  canonical  authority,  were  practising  the 
higher  criticism.  Whoever  have  dealt  with  the  topics 
appropriate  to  what  are  called  Introductions  to  the 
Bible  have  been  laborers  in  the  same  field.  The 
value  of  one's  critical  judgment  depends  in  general 
on  the  extent  of  one's  knowledge  of  the  topics  which 
the  criticism  has  to  deal  with.  But  there  is  always 
the  important  qualification,  that  the  judgment  may  be 
biased  by  a  predisposition  to  arrive  at  a  certain 
result ;  so  that  often  an  unlearned  man,  pious,  honest, 
and  clear-headed,  will  come  to  a  more  correct  con- 
clusion than  the  greatest  scholar  who  is  possessed 
with  a  passion  for  proving  a  startling  proposition. 
But  of  whatever  sort  the  critics  may  be,  candid  or 
prejudiced,  learned  or  unlearned,  they  have  never  been 
wanting. 

3.  There  is  also  a  widespread,  though  very  er- 
roneous, impression,  that  higher  criticism  is  identical 
with  destructive  criticism.  And  this  impression  too 
is  not  seldom  fostered  by  some  of  the  critics  them- 
selves. Whoever  sets  up  criticism  against  ^'tradi- 
tionalism" gives  encouragement  to  this  false  notion. 
It  creates  the  impression  that  a  man  who  follows 
traditional  views  cannot  be  critical.  But  a  man  may 
use  critical  methods  in  defending,  as  well  as  in  attack- 
ing, traditional  opinions.  And  there  may  be  a  lack 
of  candor  in  either  case.    It  is   quite  unwarrantable 

11* 


164 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM, 


for  either  class  to  make  sweeping  charges  of  un- 
criticalness  against  the  other.  It  may  be  that  in 
many  cases  mere  mental  inertia  leads  men  to  adhere 
to  traditional  views;  but  it  is  quite  as  possible  that 
in  other  cases  an  itching  for  novelty  leads  men  to 
adopt  new  doctrines.  Whoever  seek  for  facts  and 
endeavor  to  deduce  from  the  facts  legitimate  con- 
clusions are  critics,  even  though  their  conclusions  may 
be  ever  so  divergent  from  one  another. 

4.  There  is  danger  of  exaggerating  the  results  of 
modern  Biblical  criticism.  While  every  acquisition 
of  new  information,  and  every  improvement  in  the  con- 
ception of  the  Bible  and  of  Biblical  truths,  should  be 
welcomed,  it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  any  radi- 
cally new  or  revolutionary  view^s  can  gain  general 
currency.  We  sometimes  read  utterances  which  are 
fitted  to  make  the  imj)ression  that  a  new  era  has  been 
introduced  by  modern  criticism,  that  the  Christian 
world  is  in  a  tumult  of  agitation  over  it,  but  that 
the  traditional  notions  concerning  the  Bible  are  bound 
to  be  swept  away  by  the  results  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism. Books  are  written  to  familiarize  the  Christian 
public  with  Avhat  has  been  accomplished  by  modern 
research  respecting  the  Scriptures.  It  would  be 
hardly  too  much  to  say  that  something  like  intimi- 
dation is  sometimes  practised  towards  those  who 
venture  to  doubt  whether  all  these  things  are  true.  It 
is  represented  as  a  mark  of  bigotry  to  refuse  to  ac- 
cept implicitly  what  the  more  radical  critics  are  said 
to  have  made  certain  respecting  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  Thousands  of  men  are  thus  persuaded  that 
views  are  scientifically  established  which  after  all  are 
nothing  but  more  or  less  plausible  hypotheses;   and 


COXCLUDING  REMARKS.  ]^g5 

they  avow  their  acceptance  of  them,  not  because  they 
understand  the  reasons  for  them,  but  because  they 
are  afraid  of  seeming  to  be  behind  the  times. 

What,  then,  has  in  point  of  fact  been  accom- 
plished by  modern  Biblical  criticism?  In  the  exegesis 
of  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  criticism  of  the  text  much 
progress  has  been  made ;  in  what  is  distinctively  called 
the  higher  criticism,  comparatively  little  that  can  be 
called  anything  more  than  plausible  conjecture.  It 
may  be  said  of  very  much  of  it  that  what  is  true  in 
it  is  not  new,  and  what  is  new  is  not  true.  As  to 
the  Old  Testament,  the  chief  matter  about  which  one 
hears  is  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  infer- 
ences derived  from  it.  But  all  the  so-called  ''results" 
which  are  of  any  especial  consequence  are  still  matters 
of  dispute.  No  doubt,  it  has  been  made  very  prob- 
able that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  was 
not  all  written  by  Moses ;  but  that  none  of  it,  or  almost 
none  of  it,  was  written  by  him  has  not  been,  and 
never  can  be,  proved.  Indications  have  been  found 
that  Genesis  is  made  up  of  two  or  three  different 
documents ;  but  whether,  in  case  the  book  is  such  a 
compilation,  Moses  or  some  one  else  was  the  com- 
piler, a  mere  critical  examination  of  the  book  cannot 
determine ;  opinions  still  differ.  As  to  the  rest  of 
the  Pentateuch,  where  the  evidences  of  distinct  docu- 
ments are  less  forcible,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the 
critical  partition  has  some  foundation  in  fact;  but 
even  this,  though  widely  held,  is  not  conclusively 
proved,  and  is  sturdily  denied  by  many.  Still  farther 
from  being  established  is  the  hypothesis  of  the  late 
origin  and  the  fraudulent  introduction  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  history  and  legislation.     It  is  little  less   than 


256  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

a  game  of  bluff,  when  tlie  Christian  public  is  called 
upon  to  surrender  all  oi3inions  inconsistent  with  those 
advanced  by  the  radical  critics  of  the  school  of  Vatke 
and  Wellhausen. 

And  what  else  has  been  established  that  was  not 
known  before?  It  has  sometimes  been  paraded  as  an 
important  result  of  the  higher  criticism,  that  we  do 
not  know  who  wrote  such  books  as  Joshua,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Job,  etc.  But  the  books  themselves  do  not 
name  any  one  as  author.  It  requires  no  great  criti- 
cal acuteness  to  discover  this  fact.  And  as  to  the 
traditional  reports  concerning  the  authorship  of  these 
books,  we  can  only  say  that  they  may  be  incorrect, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  they  may  have  some 
foundation.  In  either  case  little  depends  on  the 
settlement  of  the  question.  For  so  far  as  the  histori- 
cal books  are  concerned,  even  though  they  may  have 
been  written  or  put  into  their  final  form  at  a  late 
period,  yet  there  is  repeated  reference  in  them  to 
annals  that  were  written  at  or  near  the  time  of  the 
events  narrated;  and  there  is  a  strong  presumption 
that  in  other  cases  also  the  narratives  are  founded 
on  earlier  written  records.  ^  As  to  the  date  of  the 
authorship  of  Job  and  of  the  Psalms,  we  have  specula- 
tions in  abundance,  but  no  assured  results.  The 
superscriptions  of  the  Psalms  may  legitimately  be 
challenged;  their  correctness  in  many  cases  is  ques- 
tionable ;  but  their  general  incorrectness  has  not  been, 
and  cannot  be,  proved.  The  arguments  of  those  who 
endeavor  to  make  the  Psalms  all  exilic  or  post-exilic 
may  almost   be  characterized  as  criticism  gone  mad. 

*  See  Girdlestone,  Foundations  of  the  Bible,  ch.  viii. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  ^QJ 

Much  is  said  about  the  date  of  Isa.  xL— Ixvi.    The 
assignment  of  this  group  of  prophecies  to  the  period 
of  the  exile  is  often  represented  as  one  of  the  greatest 
triumphs   of  Biblical   criticism.     The  main  argument 
for    such    a   judgment    is    that    the    author  not   only 
writes  about   the   exilic  state,    but  writes  as   if  that 
state  were  present.     There  is  no  analogy  for  so  long- 
continued  a  discourse  in  which  the  prophet  seems  to 
be  transported  from  the  present  into  the  future.    This 
fact,  and  the  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name,   have  great 
weight  with  many  who  do  not  disbelieve  in  a  prophet- 
ic power  to  foresee  the  future.    With  others  of  course 
the  decisive  consideration  is  the  assumed  impossibil- 
ity of  such  a   supernatural  foresight  as   is  implied  if 
Isaiah  was  the  author.     On  the  other  hand,  however, 
not  to   mention   the   uniform   opinion  of  antiquity  in 
favor  of  the  Isaian  authorship,  it  is  to  be  considered 
that  a  large  part  of  the  prophecy  in   question  is   as 
appropriate  to  Isaiah's  time    as  to  that   of  the  exile; 
that  the   same  arguments  which  are  urged  for  detach- 
ing chs.  xl. — Ixvi.  from  the  preceding   prophecies  re- 
quire us  also  to  question  many  portions  of  the  earlier 
chapters;    and   that  the   linguistic  argument  in  favor 
of  a  difference   of  authorship  has,  by   the  confession 
of  almost  all  critics,  broken  down.    At  the  best,  then, 
though  undoubtedly  the  great   majority  of  prominent 
Old  Testament  scholars  favor  the  theory  of  a  Deutero- 
Isaiah,    it    can  only  be   said    that    the  hypothesis   is 
supported    by    certain    forcible    considerations.      But 
the   utter   absence   of  any  historical   evidence    of  the 
existence  and   activity    of  any  prophet  in   the    exilic 
period  to  whom  the  chapters  in  question  can  be  ascrib- 
ed,   and  the   total  lack   of  any  ancient  testimony  in 


IQQ  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

favor  of  the  theory  of  a  dual  authorship,  compel  us^ 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  indecisiveness  of 
the  critical  arguments,  to  hold  that,  however  plau- 
sible the  hypothesis  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah  may  be,  it  is 
not  established ;  and  there  is  no  certainty  that  a  few  more 
turns  of  the  critical  wheel  will  not  bring  back  the  old 
opinion  into  general  acceptance. 

The  similar  critical  partition  of  the  book  of  Zech- 
ariah  is  less  harped  on  and  is  more  contested.  That 
chs.  ix. — xiv.  were  written  by  a  different  author  from 
that  of  chs.  i. — viii.  has  been  very  widely  maintained, 
but  the  integrity  of  the  book  has  been  very  stoutly 
defended;  and  it  does  not  tend  to  strengthen  one's- 
confidence  in  the  critical  insight  of  the  dissectors^ 
when  we  find  that  some  of  them  refer  the  latter  part 
of  the  book  to  a  period  considerably  later  than  that 
of  Zechariah,  while  others  refer  it  to  a  period  long 
previous  to  that  of  the  prophet.  At  all  events  the 
hypothesis  must  be  content  to  remain  a  hypothesis ; 
it  is  not  a  ^'result"  of  criticism  that  the  integrity  of 
the  book  is  disproved. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  greater  part  of  what 
modern  critics  have  undertaken  to  prove  respecting 
other  Old  Testament  books.  That  Ecclesiastes  was  not 
written  by  Solomon,  but  by  some  one  who  assumed 
his  name,  is  one  of  the  critical  propositions  which  i& 
generally  accepted.  It  has  also  been  made  probable 
that  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (such  as 
Samuel  and  Proverbs)  are  composite  works.  Great 
efforts  have  been  made  to  show  that  there  are  dis- 
crepancies and  errors  in  the  historical  books,  and 
especially  to  show  that  the  books  of  Chronicles  are 
untrustworthy.     Undoubtedly  it  has  been  made  prob- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


16^ 


able  that  minor  errors  exist  in  these  and  other  books. 
But  it  has  not  been  proved  that  any  of  them  in  their 
main  purport  are  unhistorical.  Many  learned  and 
valuable  investigations  have  been  made  with  regard 
to  various  historical  and  linguistic  questions;  the 
relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  recently  discov- 
ered records  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  furnishes  a  most 
interesting  department  of  study.  But  nothing  has 
been  brought  to  light  which  works  any  radical  change 
in  the  general  view  of  the  historical  value  of  the  Hebrew 
records. 

The  conclusion,  then,  must  be  that,  while  the 
work  of  the  higher  criticism  has  been  important  and 
useful,  it  has  not  to  any  material  extent  succeeded  in 
revolutionizing  the  conception  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  has  previously  been  entertained.  And  though 
in  some  subordinate  particulars  the  ancient  notions 
have  been  modified,  on  the  other  hand  the  progress 
of  historical  and  archaeological  research  has  estab- 
lished the  truthfulness  of  many  sections  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  formerly  were  pronounced  by  skep- 
tical critics  to  be  incredible. 

If  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  the  results  of 
criticism  in  modifying  the  traditional  views  respecting 
it  are,  if  anything,  still  less  marked.  There  has  been 
much  minute  examination  of  the  several  parts,  and 
comparison  of  them  with  one  another.  Attention  has 
been  called  to  many  real  or  apparent  discrepancies 
and  errors.  Plausible  speculations  have  been  made 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  their 
relation  to  each  other;  but  no  conclusion  has  been 
reached.  The  authenticity  of  Acts  has  been  vigor- 
ously assailed,    and  as  vigorously  defended.     Many  of 


;^7Q  CHKIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

the  Pauline  Epistles  have  been  pronounced  by  some 
critics  to  be  spurious ;  but  equally  able  critics  main- 
tain their  genuineness ,  and  the  general  opinion  of 
Christendom  undoubtedly  remains  what  it  always  has 
been.  The  old  doubts  about  Second  Peter  have  been 
revived  and  fortified  by  elaborate  critical  research ; 
a  formidable  assault  has  been  made  on  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Fourth  Gospel;  and  various  speculations 
concerning  the  authorship  and  composition  of  the 
Apocalypse  have  been  ventilated.  But  on  none  of 
these  points  can  the  traditional  opinion  be  regarded 
as  overthrown.  In  fact,  the  more  recent  New  Testa- 
ment criticism  has  accomplished  more  by  way  of 
justifying  the  previous  belief  in  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  books  than  in  the 
opposite  direction.  Too  much  praise  cannot  be  given 
to  those  who  have  followed  step  by  step  the  subtle 
arguments  of  skeptics  (e.  g.  Lightfoot  versus  the  author 
of  Supernatural  Reliyion)  or  of  rationalistic  Christians, 
and  have  shown  more  clearly  than  ever  before  how 
impregnable  the  historical  foundation  of  our  faith  is. 

In  general,  as  regards  both  the  Testaments,  there 
has  been  without  doubt,  as  compared  with  one  or 
two  centuries  ago,  a  considerable  modification  of  the 
theory  of  the  inspiration  and  the  strict  inerrancy  of 
the  Bible.  The  human  element  in  the  composition 
and  contents  of  the  several  books  is  more  generally 
recognized  and  emphasized.  This  change  of  opinion, 
however,  has  been  long  going  on,  and  cannot  be 
called  one  of  the  trophies  of  the  more  recent  critical 
researches. 

5.  It  follows  from  the  foregoing  that  it  is  well 
not  to  make  premature  concessions  to  critical  hypoth- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  J^J]^ 

€ses  and  conjectures.  No  doubt,  Christians  have 
often  been  guilty  of  the  opposite  fault,  especially 
when  they  condemned  the  propositions  of  naturalists 
on  the  ground  of  their  inconsistency  with  the  Bible. 
The  astronomical  and  geological  doctrines  against 
which  believers  in  the  Bible  protested  were  wrought 
out,  on  the  basis  of  observed  facts,  by  experts.  The 
subjects  had  no  immediate  relation  to  the  main  con- 
tents and  general  purpose  of  the  Biblical  revelation. 
It  was  proper  enough  to  withhold  assent  from  the 
new  doctrines  so  long  as  they  were  only  conjectures 
and  speculations;  but  when  they  became,  in  the  eyes 
of  all  scientists,  established  truths,  opposition  should 
have  ceased.  But  at  present  the  questions  on  which 
differences  exist  are,  so  to  speak,  intra-Biblical  ques- 
tions. The  new  theories  are  propounded  by  Biblical 
scholars,  but  they  are  also  contested  by  Biblical 
scholars,  —  in  either  case  on  critical  grounds.  They 
are  not  established;  until  they  are  established,  it  is 
premature  to  begin  to  recast  our  whole  conception 
of  the  Bible  in  order  to  adjust  it  to  them. 

For  whoever  makes  even  a  provisional  or  con- 
ditional concession  to  undemonstrated  critical  theories, 
whoever  talks  or  writes  as  if  perhaps  or  probably 
they  may  turn  out  to  be  well  founded,  and  begins  to 
speculate  how  his  faith  can  be  accommodated  to  them, 
is  lending  them  a  support  to  which  they  are  not 
entitled.  If,  as  soon  as  a  scholar,  or  a  group  of 
scholars,  makes  an  assault  on  a  position  heretofore 
supposed  to  be  impregnable,  Christians  begin  at  once 
±0  talk  as  if  the  old  view  must  probably  or  certainly 
be  surrendered,  they  pursue  a  course  which  is  closely 
nkin  to  cowardice,  if  not  to  treason.     It  is  as  if  the 


1'J2  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

commander  of  a  fort  should  begin  to  open  his  gates 
as  soon  as  an  attack  is  made  and  before  the  size  of 
the  attacking  force  is  known.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing 
to  find  good  Christians  speaking  as  if  only  the  first 
four  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  could  be  depended  on 
as  coming  from  Paul  himself.  Not  that  they  are 
convinced  that  the  others  are  spurious.  Very  prob- 
ably they  have  never  read  any  of  the  arguments  of 
the  skeptical  critics,  nor  any  of  the  replies  to  those 
arguments.  But  they  have  heard  that  the  nine 
smaller  Epistles  have  been  suspected,  and  at  once  they 
begin  to  consider  how  much  would  be  lost,  if  the 
suspicion  should  prove  to  be  well  grounded.  They 
say  to  themselves,  ^'Well,  after  all,  the  first  four 
Epistles  are  left;  and  they  contain  all  the  essential 
truths  that  are  found  in  the  others.  These  at  least 
are  undisputed."  Others  take  a  somewhat  different 
course,  and  say,  ''Well,  even  if  the  nine  are  spurious,, 
they  contain  much  excellent  matter.  They  are  Paul- 
ine in  spirit ,  and  it  is  of  no  great  account  whether 
Paul  himself  wrote  them  or  not." 

But  what  is  to  be  done,  now  that  certain  critics 
deny  the  genuineness  of  all  the  Pauline  Epistles?  It 
can  no  longer  be  said  that  the  first  four  are  un- 
disputed. This  extreme  form  of  destructive  criticism 
is,  it  is  true,  not  yet  very  wide-spread;  but  it  is  in 
some  respects  more  logical  than  the  Tubingen  theory. 
The  simple  fact  is  that  all  the  thirteen  Epistles  have 
been  until  this  century  practically  undisputed.  They 
all  alike  purport  to  be,  and  have  from  the  first  been 
supposed  to  be,  genuine  writings  of  Paul.  If  they 
all  agree  so  well  with  one  another  that  they  might 
well  have  been  written  by  the  same  man,  then  there- 


CONCLUDING  KEMARKS.  J 73 

is  no  ground  for  singling  out  some  as  genuine  and 
rejecting  the  others.  If  they  do  not  so  agree,  still 
there  is  no  determining  which  are  Pauline,  and  which 
^re  not,  since  the  genuineness  of  all  is  historically 
equally  well  attested.  If  Baur  chooses  to  pitch  upon 
Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians  as  indisputably 
genuine,  and  to  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  others 
because  of  their  inconsistency  with  these  four,  an- 
other man  would  be  equally  justifiable  in  saying  that 
Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Colossians  are  indisputable, 
and  in  rejecting  all  the  others  as  being  not  in  harmony 
with  these. 

It  would  not  be  strange,  therefore,  if  in  these 
days,  when  anything  new  is  eagerly  caught  up,  this 
-extreme  -^result"  of  criticism,  which  pronounces  all 
the  Pauline  Epistles  spurious,  should  obtain  a  wide 
currency  among  Biblical  critics.  And  what  then? 
If  the  same  easy,  accommodating  spirit  is  shown 
towards  it  as  towards  the  other  one,  then  the  Christian 
who  looks  around  to  see  what  he  can  cling  to  as  un- 
disputed may  discover  that  he  has  nothing.  All  the 
Gospels,  the  Acts,  all  the  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse 
have  been  disputed  more  or  less ;  and  if  we  are  to  be 
governed  by  the  principle  of  firmly  trusting  nothing 
but  what  is  universally  accepted,  our  faith  is  already 
left  without  any  sure  foundation  at  all.  Is  it  not 
naore  rational ,  as  well  as  more  courageous ,  not  to 
make  a  surrender  before  we  are  conquered? 

A  similar  line  of  remark  is  appropriate  respecting 
the  more  recent  radical  reconstruction  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  is  altogether  too  early  to  begin  to 
adjust  ourselves  to  it.  It  is  not  established ;  and  any 
iittempt  to  harmonize  it  with  our   Christian   faith   is 


174 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


uncalled  for  and  premature.  There  is  no  more  occa- 
sion for  trying  to  find  a  place  in  our  Christian  faith 
for  this  extreme  theory  of  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  than  there  was  fifty  years  ago  for  doing  the 
same  with  the  Tlibin^eu  theory.  The  two  cases  are 
closely  analogous,  in  both  a  theory  of  development 
lies  at  the  basis.  In  both  there  is  an  avowed  or 
latent  doubt  of  the  supernatural.  In  both,  an  ex- 
aggeration of  the  real  or  supposed  antitheses  of 
religious  parties.  In  both,  the  assumption  of  the 
controlling  influence  of  partisanship  in  the  composition 
of  the  sacred  books.  In  both,  a  free  use  of  arbitrary 
conjecture  as  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  books. 
In  both,  the  ascription  of  genuineness  or  authenticity 
to  some  books  (the  prophetic  books  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  first  four  Pauline  Epistles  and  the  Apo- 
calypse in  the  New)  and  using  them  as  a  means  of 
discrediting  the  greater  part  of  the  others.  In  both, 
the  distorting  of  facts  for  the  sake  of  the  theory,  and 
the  creation  of  greater  difficulties  than  those  that 
are  removed. 

Now  when  the  Tiibingen  theory  was  propounded, 
and  acquired  for  a  time  a  wide  currency,  there  was 
precisely  as  much  occasion  for  Christians  to  bestir 
themselves  to  reconcile  their  faith  with  the  theory  aa 
there  now  is  for  their  hastening  to  see  how  they  can 
find  room  for  the  Kuenen  - Wellhausen  hypothesis. 
But,  instead  of  doing  that.  Christian  scholars  then 
went  to  work  and  overthrew  the  theory,  and  saved 
themselves  the  trouble  and  self-mystification  which 
would  have  been  involved  in  adjusting  themselves  to 
it.  They  saw  that,  whether  so  intended  or  not,  the 
theory  was  really  an  assault  on  the  foundations  of 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


175 


Christianity;  and  they  did  not  see  any  occasion  for 
sending  out  a  flag  of  truce  in  order  to  learn  what 
terms  could  be  made  with  the  enemy,  but  they  simply 
beat  him  off  with  the  same  weapons  with  which  the 
assault  was  made,  and  held  their  ground.  There  is 
every  reason  why  the  same  course  should  be  taken  now. 
But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Wellhausen  theory  is 
adopted  by  many  excellent  Christian  men ,  and  that 
it  is  therefore  rash  and  unwarranted  to  pronounce  it 
unchristian  either  in  its  professions  or  in  its  tenden- 
cies. Now  without  doubt  good  Christians  and  schol- 
arly Christians  have  adopted  it,  and  it  is  not  at  all 
necessary  to  impugn  the  sincerity  of  their  Christian 
faith.  But  no  heresy  or  fanaticism  in  Christendom 
has  ever  failed  to  secure  adherents  among  good 
Christians.  And  any  theory  respecting  the  Bible,  if 
propounded  by  professed  Christians,  and  advocated 
with  ingenuity,  can  always  reckon  on  receiving  the 
assent  of  many  sincere  believers.  But  for  all  that 
the  theory  may  be  in  its  roots  and  tendencies  essen- 
tially anti-Christian.  That  tendency  may  be  seen  by 
many  who  have  not  learning  or  acumen  enough  to 
refute  the  arguments  by  which  the  theory  is  support- 
ed; and  in  that  case  their  part  is  to  hold  on  to 
their  old  faith,  and  wait  for  experts  to  meet  the  new 
hypothesis  on  its  own  ground.  The  Tubingen  theory 
could  also  claim  that  it  was  advocated  and  adopted 
by  professedly  Christian  men ;  and  even  the  extrav- 
agant outcome  of  that  theory ,  which  has  gone  so 
far  as  to  make  all  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  all  the 
New  Testament  books  spurious  and  in  great  part  un- 
trustworthy, is  put  forth  by  teachers  of  Christian 
theology  (Loman,  Steck,  and  others).    But  it  is  none 


176  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

the  less  a  theory  which  directly  tends  to  make  all 
Christian  faith  the  sport  of  learned  caprice,  and  leaves 
nothing  that  is  distinctive  in  it  fixed  and  settled. 

Just  so  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  has  been  follow- 
ed by  the  still  more  radical  theory  that  not  only  the 
Pentateuch  and  other  historical  books  are  wholly  or 
largely  unauthentic ,  but  also  that  the  prophetic 
writings  too  are  spurious  productions  of  the  post- 
exilic  period.  The  example  having  been  set  of  letting 
a  theory  determine  one  to  accept  certain  writings  as 
authentic,  and  to  reject  others  as  spurious  or  un- 
historical,  according  as  the  exigencies  of  the  theory 
require,  it  is  no  wonder  if  the  lesson  is  improved  on. 
By  making  all  the  Old  Testament  books  fictitious  or 
pseudonymous  works,  one  relieves  himself  of  all  the 
puzzling  difficulties  which  beset  other  critics.  He  has 
no  occasion  to  reconcile  one  writer  with  another,  nor 
to  explain  their  differences.  He  can  take,  it  may  be 
said,  each  of  the  Biblical  books  by  itself,  and  get 
whatever  edification  he  can  out  of  its  fancies  or 
fictions.  But  certainly  few  will  hold  that  such  a 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  is  consistent  with  an  earnest 
Christian  faith,  even  though  professed  Christians  may 
be  found  among  its  advocates. 

Now  of  course  it  cannot  be  maintained  that,  be- 
cause some  men  carry  their  theories  to  a  great  extreme, 
therefore  we  must  needs  abide  by  the  traditional  view 
and  tolerate  no  departure  from  it,  however  cogent 
the  arguments  against  it  may  seem  to  be.  But  it 
must  be  maintained  that  theories  which  make  the 
Bible  largely  or  predominantly  unhistorical,  legendary, 
and  fictitious  in  its  origin,  and  represent  the  intro- 
duction of  Biblical   books  into   the  Canon   as  accom- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


177 


plished  by  tricks  worthy  only  of  unprincipled  politi- 
cians, must  be  regarded  as  presumptively  false,  as 
dishonoring  to  God,  and  as  invalidating  the  religious 
authority  of  Christ.  Inasmuch  as  the  arguments  for 
such  theories  can  never  claim  for  themselves  demon- 
strative force,  and  at  the  best  can  be  said  only  to 
make  out  a  more  or  less  strong  probability  for  the 
view  advocated,  it  is  enough  for  ordinary  Christians 
to  say  that  any  such  probability  is  more  than  out- 
weighed by  the  improbability  that  Christ  would  have 
sanctioned  a  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  is 
inconsistent  with  any  such  theory,  or  that  God  would 
have  allowed  the  history  of  his  revelation  to  be  vitiated 
by  such  frauds  and  wholesale  misrepresentation  of 
facts. 

6.  It  is  a  precarious  resource,  when  one  essays 
t)  reconcile  his  Christian  faith  with  the  alleged  re- 
sults of  radical  criticism  by  falling  back  on  the  gen- 
eral doctrine  that,  no  matter  what  may  be  made  out 
as  to  the  origin  or  authenticity  of  the  Biblical  books, 
at  any  rate  they  are  all  inspired.'^  Only,  it  is  said, 
we  may  need  to  reconstruct  our  theory  of  inspiration. 
Well,  it  is  quite  true  that  the  theory  of  Biblical  in- 
s}  iration  is  not  settled.  There  is  no  universal  agree- 
meni.  as  to  how  much  is  involved  in  it,  what  the  nat- 
ure of  the  inspiration  was,  or  how  far  it  insured  free- 
dom from  all  error.  Perhaps  there  never  will  be  a 
th  ory  which  all  Christians  will  assent  to.  But  there 
certainly  must  be  a  limit  below  which  the  claim  of 
divine    inspiration   for   a    book    must    be    disallowed. 

^  This  is  the  general  position  of  the  above-mentioned  work 
of  ilev.  B,.  F.  Horton,  Inspiration  and  the  Bible. 

12 


178 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


Even  Robertson  Smith  says,  ^  ''AH  sound  apologetic 
admits  that  the  proof  that  a  book  is  credible  must 
precede  belief  that  it  is  inspired".  How  he  can  rec- 
oncile such  a  principle  with  his  own  profession  of 
faith  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  as  it  is  left  by 
the  Wellhausen  theory,  it  is  for  him  to  explain.  But 
undoubtedly  the  principle  is  correct.  If  a  book  is 
essentially  incredible,  it  cannot  be  inspired  in  any  re- 
spectable sense  of  the  word.  If,  therefore,  it  is  sup- 
posed to  be  proved  of  any  Biblical  book  that  it  is 
full  of  myths,  legends,  or  falsified  history,  that  it  is  a 
deliberate  forgery,  or  that  it  has  been  largely  inter- 
polated and  worked  over  for  tbe  purpose  of  promoting 
partisan  ends,  then  it  is  of  little  use  to  say  that, 
being  in  the  Bible,  the  book  must  be  inspired,  the 
critical  discoveries  as  to  the  character  of  the  book, 
however,  making  it  necessary  to  accommodate  our 
theory  of  inspiration  to  the  facts.  It  is  very  true  that 
we  should  accommodate  our  theory  of  inspiration  to 
the  facts ;  but  if  the  facts  are  as  they  are  alleged  to  be, 
then  the  only  sensible  theory  of  the  inspiration  of 
such  books  is  that  there  is  no  inspiration  in  the  case 
at  all,  or,  if  any,  the  inspiration  of  a  lying  spirit 
kindred  with  the  one  who  is  said  to  have  inspired 
the  false  prophets  in  the  time  of  Ahab  (1  Kings  xxii.  22). 
In  the  case  of  many  men  there  is  much  that  seems 
like  a  subterfuge,  when  they  avow  a  general  belief  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  Men  talk  as  if,  by 
making  a  sweeping  avowal  of  belief  in  it,  they  were 
thereby  securing  to  themselves  full  liberty  to  believe 
in  detail   anything  whatever  that  is   discreditable   to 

1  L.  c.  p.  309. 


CONCLUDING  REMAEKS. 


179 


the  Scriptures.  In  the  end,  however,  the  chief  dis- 
credit, it  is  to  be  apprehended,  will  be  found  at  their 
own  doors.  It  may  be  sincerely  and  honestly  meant, 
when  a  belief  in  inspiration  is  professed  alongside  of 
views  which  appear  to  put  the  Bible  (in  part  at  least) 
far  below  a  large  proportion  of  uninspired  books; 
but  ordinary  men  will  not  be  able  to  see  the  reason- 
ableness of  the  profession.  It  will  naturally  seem  like 
a  device  to  save  appearances  —  to  retain  the  repu- 
tation of  having  a  faith  in  the  peculiar  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  minds  of  the  Biblical  writers, 
when  in  point  of  fact  they  believe  no  such  thing.  It  would 
be  better  to  abandon  all  profession  of  belief  in  inspiration 
than  to  expose  the  profession  to  such  a  construction. 
It  would  be  doing  more  honor  to  the  Bible  to  regard 
it  in  general  as  a  trustworthy  record  of  the  history 
of  a  divine  revelation,  though  written  without  any 
peculiar  divine  inspiration,  than  to  proclaim  a  general 
faith  in  its  inspiration,  while  avowing  a  disbelief  in 
its  general  trustworthiness. 

7.  Faith  in  Christ  and  faith  in  criticism  are  quite 
compatible  with  each  other ;  but  the  faith  in  criticism 
must  not  be  allowed  to  control  the  faith  in  Christ. 
There  is  reason  to  fear  that  at  the  present  time  there 
is  too  much  disposition  to  let  faith  in  criticism  be- 
come the  controlling  factor.  While  it  is  proclaimed 
that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  fixed  thing  that  cannot  be 
disturbed  by  critical  research,  the  practical  result 
often  is  that  even  the  most  destructive  critical  theories 
are  accepted  as  unquestionable,  and  faith  in  Christ  is 
accommodated  to  them  as  well  as  it  may  be.  There 
may  remain  indeed  a  faith  in  his  existence,  in  his 
superiority  as  an  ethical  teacher,  possibly  in  his  sin- 

12* 


180 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


lessness;  but  faith  in  his  authority  and  infallibility 
4[)ecomes  exceedingly  attenuated,  or  wholly  disappears. 
"Whenever  the  critic  and  Christ  seem  to  come  into 
collision,  Christ  is  made  to  give  way. 

It  is  true,  an  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  show 
that  the  Biblical  criticism  which  overthrows  tradi- 
tional views  of  the  Bible  is  the  means  of  exalting 
Christ  rather  than  the  opposite.  The  Bible,  it  is 
said,  has  been  honored  and  believed  in  rather  than 
Christ.  This  Bibliolatry  needed,  therefore,  to  be 
overthrown ;  and  this  is  accomplished  by  the  criticism 
which  mercilessly  exposes  the  errors  and  weaknesses 
of  the  Biblical  writers.  The  Bible  as  an  object  of 
worship  and  implicit  faith  being  put  out  of  the  way, 
Christ  can  be  put  in  the  place  of  it  and  made  the 
object  of  supreme  trust. 

Others  come  to  a  similar  result  by  a  different 
course.  They  deprecate  bringing  Christ  into  critical 
discussions  at  all.  They  plead  that  it  is  a  desecra- 
tion to  drag  him  into  this  arena  of  scientific  combat- 
ants and  to  attempt  to  make  him  an  umpire  between 
contending  parties. 

In  both  these  cases  there  is  an  underlying  assump- 
tion that  Christ  and  the  Bible  are  so  distinct  that 
opinions  about  the  one  in  no  way  determine  opinions 
about  the  other.  The  fallacy  of  this  assumption  has 
already  been  exposed.  No  doubt,  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  Bibliolatry.  No  doubt,  Christ,  rather  than 
the  Bible,  is  the  object  of  supreme  faith  to  the 
Christian.  But  he  who  supposes  that  a  criticism 
which  destroys  one's  confidence  in  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  Bible  can  leave  one's  reverence  for  Christ  un- 
impaired, must  be  singularly  unable  to  see  things  in 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  \Ql 

their  true  relation.  It  may  be  quite  true,  as  is  some- 
times remarked,  that  Christians  can  be  said  to  believe 
in  the  New  Testament  because  of  their  faith  in  Christ, 
rather  than  in  Christ  because  of  their  faith  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  to  say  that  they  believe  in  the 
New  Testament  because  of  their  faith  in  Christ  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  saying  that  they  may  dis- 
believe in  the  New  Testament  ^/^  spite  of  their  faith  in 
Christ.  The  two  faiths  involve  and  imply  each  other ; 
and  neither  can  be  overturned  without  overturning 
the  other. 

And  when  it  is  said  that  Christ  is  too  sacred  a 
personage  to  be  dragged  into  critical  controversies, 
it  needs  only  to  be  replied  that  the  offense,  if  there 
is  any,  is  committed  not  only  by  those  who  rashly 
adduce  Christ's  authority  against  critical  opinions, 
but  by  those  who  in  their  critical  discussions  do 
really  come  into  collision  with  that  authority.  It 
avails  nothing  for  the  critic  to  say  that  he  makes  no 
mention  of  Christ  in  his  researches.  So  a  defender 
of  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  the  celestial  movements 
might  refrain  from  all  mention  of  Copernicus;  but 
none  the  less  would  he  be  making  an  assault  on  the 
Copernican  theory.  And  it  would  be  a  poor  shift  for 
him,  in  case  Copernicus  were  quoted  against  him,  to 
protest  that  Copernicus  is  too  lofty  a  person  to  be 
dragged  into  such  discussions.  It  is  true,  the  critic 
may  claim  that  he  does  not  impugn  the  authority  of 
Christ  in  matters  respecting  which  Christ  really  as- 
sumes to  be  an  authority.  But,  to  say  the  least;  there 
may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  on  the  point,  how  far 
his  authority  extends;  and  the  appeal  to  him  cannot 
be  summarily  cut  off  by  the  solemn  caution   that  he 


282  CHRIST  AND     CRITICISM. 

is  too  sacred  a  being  to  be  introduced  into  critical 
discussions  of  the  Bible. 

For  in  truth  there  is  no  limit  to  the  particulars 
in  regard  to  which  Biblical  critics  may  affirm  that 
the  alleged  or  actual  utterances  of  Christ  are  not  to 
be  implicitly  trusted.  Whenever  his  word  appears 
to  conflict  with  their  judgments,  it  can  always  be 
alleged  that  on  such  points  he  was  ignorant  and 
mistaken.  Even  in  religious,  no  less  than  in  secular, 
matters,  whenever  there  is  a  collision  of  opinion 
between  him  and  them,  it  may  be  held  that  he  was 
limited  by  the  prejudices  of  his  age,  so  that,  though 
he  uttered  many  excellent  sentiments,  he  cannot  be 
called  an  infallible  authority.  In  short,  instead  of 
being  reverenced  and  trusted  as  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Light  of  men,  the  authoritative  Revealer  of  the  divine 
will  and  character,  the  sole  Saviour  of  men,  he  is 
thus  reduced  to  the  status  of  a  mere  man,  though  prob- 
ably a  rare  man,  but  still  a  mere  man,  and  a  very 
fallible  one  at  that,  whose  word  cannot  be  taken 
when  it  conflicts  with  that  of  those  who  profess  to  be 
experts  in  Biblical  criticism.  Manifestly  faith  in  a 
person  of  this  sort  is  something  quite  diflerent  from 
the  general  faith  of  Christendom. 

This  lowering  of  the  standard,  this  weakening  of 
faith  in  the  great  Leader  under  whom  we  profess  to 
march,  falls  in  with  the  tendency  of  the  age  to  make 
the  doors  of  the  Christian  Church  very  ''broad".  We 
sometimes  hear  it  said  that  the  Church  should  wel- 
come any  one  who  professes  to  be  seeking  the  truth 
and  recognizes  the  obligation  of  morality.  There  is 
a  great  dread  of  seeming  to  be  exclusive  and  bigoted. 
Efforts  are  made  to   construct   a  programme   on  the 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  ]^83 

basis  of  which  men  of  the  most  diverse  beliefs  and 
tastes  can  unite. 

Now  there  is  something  winsome  in  such  a  catho- 
lic spirit.  But  a  church  organized  on  such  a  basis 
would  not  be  a  genuine  Christian  Church ,  even  if  it 
should  call  itself  by  that  name.  Such  a  church  would 
have  no  room  for  Christ  as  its  Head;  for  a  large 
proportion  of  its  members  might  not  acknowledge 
him  as  even  an  authoritative  teacher.  Such  a  church 
would  not  be  founded  on  Christ.  He  demands  for 
himself  implicit  faith  and  obedience.  He  does  not 
tell  of  the  broadness  of  the  door  through  which  those 
are  to  pass  who  wish  to  become  his  disciples;  on 
the  contrary  he  calls  it  narrow.  His  followers  must 
be  born  again  and  become  as  little  children.  Men 
are  to  be  convicted  of  sin  because  they  believe  not 
in  him.  They  are  to  be  judged  according  to  their 
fidelity  to  him.  He  expects  to  be  fully  trusted.  He 
professed  to  be  the  Son  of  God  and  to  be  invested 
with  authority.  But  it  was  not  an  authority  of  out- 
ward force ;  it  was  that  of  inward  worth.  He  com- 
mitted his  cause  to  the  few  who  had  learned  to  trust 
him;  but  he  assured  them  that  they  would  succeed  in 
establishing  his  Kingdom  only  as  they  proclaimed 
him  to  be  Lord  and  Master.  His  final  charge  was: 
^'Go,  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you;  and 
lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
would." 

And  the  growth  of  the  Church  has  come  through 
the  agency  of  those  who  preached  Jesus  as  the  Lord 
and  the  Head.  This  positive,  all-absorbing  faith  in 
him,   dominating  the   heart  and  mind,  has  been  the 


184 


CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 


power  of  Grod  unto  salvation.  Let  this  faith  be  toned 
down  and  flatted  out  till  Christ  no  longer  remains  as 
the  inspiring,  commanding,  all-sufficient  Leader;  let 
him  be  put  into  the  background,  and  self-chosen  terms 
of  admission  into  the  so-called  Church  be  fixed;  and 
then,  though  the  Church  may  be  very  broad,  it  will 
be  very  weak.  There  will  be  no  well-defined  bond  of 
union,  no  common  faith ^  no  single  aim,  but  only  a 
heterogeneous  collection  of  individuals,  destined  soon 
to  go  into  dissolution. 

We  hear  much  about  ^'the  Church  of  the  future" 
—  which  means,  in  the  mind  of  those  who  use  the 
phrase,  the  Church  as  they  think  it  ought  to  be  in 
the  present.  But  whatever  else  may  or  may  not  be 
characteristic  of  the  Church  of  the  future ,  this  one 
must  be,  if  it  is  to  have  a  triumphant  career :  it  must 
exalt  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Master,  and  the  only 
one  through  whom  men  can  be  saved;  it  must  preach 
him  crucified,  risen,  and  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  as  the  Redeemer  and  the  King;  as  the  one  in 
whom  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  in 
whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge 
hidden ;  as  the  effulgence  of  God's  glory,  and  the  very 
image  of  his  substance;  as  the  Bigh  Priest  through 
whom  we  receive  mercy  and  find  grace  to  help  in 
time  of  need. 

Christianity;  to  be  progressive,  must  be  aggressive. 
Christ  '^must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under 
his  feet."  He  must  be  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord 
of  lords.  He  brooks  no  rival  in  his  authority.  In 
these  days  when  much  attention  is  given  to  ethnic 
religions,  the  opinion  is  sometimes  expressed  that 
great  injustice  has  been  done  to  them  by  stigmatizing 


CONCLUDING  EEMAKKS. 


185 


them  all  as  heathen,  and  overlooking  the  many  ex- 
cellent traits  that  are  discoverable  in  them.  It  seems 
to  be  thought,  even  by  some  Christians,  that  Christi- 
anity may  learn  much  from  these  religions,  even  though 
it  may  be  on  the  whole  superior  to  them ;  and  we 
hear  of  men  being  sent  out,  not  as  missionaries,  but 
as  ambassadors,  to  confer  with  the  adherents  of  other 
religions  by  way  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with 
them,  rather  than  for  the  sake  of  converting  them  to 
a  better  faith.  Now,  however  amiable  this  may  seem, 
it  is  not  the  Master's  programme  for  evangelizing  the 
world.  No  doubt,  there  are  admirable  features  to  be 
found  in  other  religions  than  the  Christian.  Whether 
they  are  the  faded  glories  of  a  primeval  revelation, 
or  the  results  of  independent  aspirations  after  God, 
let  them  have  all  due  recognition.  But  Christianity 
has  room  tor  all  that  is  truly  good;  and  Christ  did 
not  commission  his  disciples  to  go  into  all  nations 
chiefly  in  order  to  rail  against  their  religions.  But 
he  did  bid  them  to  make  all  nations  disciples  of  him^ 
and  to  teach  them  to  observe  all  things  that  he  had 
commanded  them. 

The  power  of  Christianity  has  consisted  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  religion  embodied  in  a  person  —  one 
who  is  at  once  a  perfect  Teacher,  Pattern,  and 
Redeemer.  Christian  scholarship  and  thought  have 
still  a  task  to  do  in  setting  forth  the  true  character 
of  Christ  and  the  true  meaning  of  his  work  and 
words.  But  a  scholarship  which  seeks  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  him,  assumes  to  correct  and  supplement  his 
teachings,  and  practically  sets  itself  up  as  higher  and 
more  authoritative  than  he,  is  not  Christian  and  must 
come  to  nought.     If  the  history  of  Christianity  has 


136  CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM. 

proved  anything,  it  has  proved  that  its  great  advances 
and  conquests  have  been  accomplished  only  when 
Christ  has  been  magnified  as  the  one  Saviour,  as  the 
standard  and  object  of  faith,  as  the  infallible  Law- 
giver and  Judge  in  the  kingdom  of  God  which  he  came 
to  establish.  Anything  that  puts  him  at  all  into  the 
background  —  any  attempt  to  construct  a  revised 
Christianity,  or  a  syncretistic  religion  to  which  each 
of  the  existent  religions  shall  contribute  a  share, 
none  being  pre-eminent  and  dominant  over  the  others 
—  must  certainly  end  in  failure.  Christ  professed  to 
be  the  Light  and  the  Truth;  and  all  who  call  them- 
selves believers  in  him,  if  truly  faithful  to  him,  must 
say  with  Peter,  ''Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?  thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life." 


PriT'ted  by  Lippert  &  Co.,  Naumburg  a/S.  Germany. 


Date  Due 

^WPW^; 

<i) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

.&t^ 


„„ceton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1012  01012  4586 


1 


